stands A when the high priest celebrates, before the *skeuophylakion*; and if anything is needed from the *skeuophylakion*, he himself provides it, whether it be a vessel, a sacred book, wax candles, or liturgical vestments, holding under his authority the *skeuophylakion* of the bishopric and every vessel of the church. He also has the widowed churches under his supervision, along with all their sacred items; he is also involved in legal judgments, guarding the rights of those entering into the church on behalf of the clergy until such matters are distributed to them.
But since there were many *skeuophylaces* in the Sophian church at that time (for there were four presbyters, six deacons, and two readers according to the edict of Heraclius himself), it is not very easy for one to concede that our George held the first rank among those who were endowed with the same dignity, and one will contend that he cannot rightly be called the great *skeuophylax* by us. B There are clearly no arguments by which we can assert that George held the prefecture of the *skeuophylakion*, but the title itself, as well as the great intimacy that touched upon Sergius and Heraclius, aroused our suspicion. For he praises Sergius so often that he seems to be joined to him by great familiarity. He dedicates his *Hexaemeron* to him, and he demonstrates that he undertook this work at his very prompting, beginning at verse 32: "I have come bearing to you the fruits of a desert heart, cultivated from your dew." And a little later, at verse 49, he testifies that, emboldened by his favor and spurred on by his incentives, he approached the work: "Having stretched my spirit toward the goal, I trust in your mystical darts." Finally, at verse 1879, he affirms that he saw the patriarch himself pouring out C many tears and prayers to God for the salvation of the emperor and the happiness of the kingdom: "We knew him, even if he seemed to have spoken." A similar thing occurs in the *Abarica* to be read: for there, at verse 235, George represents Sergius struggling against the Barbarians with tears and sighs, as if he himself were aware of everything that was being done by the patriarch.
As far as Heraclius is concerned, the *Acroases* written about him and confidently offered to him demonstrate that George was certainly held in some esteem by him. For thus he addresses the emperor in *Acroas.* 1, 37, *De expeditione*: "Receive my words with goodwill; for they are free from flattery, having learned from you not to speak with hypocrisy." This is indeed confirmed by *Acroas.* 5, 374, saying: "I bring to you this woven crown, just now from the undefiled meadow of truth." And he affirmed this quite rightly to Heraclius, O Pisida: for he did not speak of things long since finished D and removed from himself by a great interval of time or place, but of those things of which he himself had been an eyewitness and observer. Indeed, it is not at all doubtful that he was a companion of Heraclius in the first expedition against the Persians: for he narrates—or rather, describes—what was done in such a way that it is immediately apparent to the reader that he was present for each event. But it is pleasing to hear him speak of himself. For he says in *Acroas.* 2, 122, that he had inspected the preludes of war: "A certain impulse was coming upon me there to see the delightful preludes of battle." Moreover, he declares his presence among the arms more openly in *Acroas.* 3, 131, saying that he saw the soldiers weeping for the salvation of the emperor, and that he wept together with them: "I sympathized, O Sovereign, with those who were rightly and wisely thinking, and I suffered even more, mingled by the sameness of our tears." But in the same *acroasis*, at verse 343, he reports that he heard with his own ears Heraclius himself, who was about to return to the city from Persia when the first war had already been finished, rejoicing over the labors undertaken: "For you yourself, numbering for us many times the measure of your life, made it clear how many days you lived in [the service of] God, [having lived] for so long a time in ease." Finally, at the end of the same *acroasis*, at verse 355, he testifies that he saw one head of the hydra—that is, of the error widely creeping among the Persians: "Which now seeing, we wonder exceedingly, having chanced upon Heraclius, and been saved."
Therefore, if the Pisidan, as is evident, accompanied Heraclius fighting in Persia, and the emperor did not disdain to have him as a witness of his piety and virtue, it is sufficiently clear from this, I think, of what value he was to the king himself, and indeed in the entire Byzantine court. For he did not follow his leader as a common soldier, but as a poet followed his prince and master, so that he might observe what was being done by him and commit it to writing. One might believe that he was perhaps as dear to Heraclius as Ennius was once to Scipio Africanus, whom Cicero in *Pro Archia* records as having been established in marble in the sepulcher of the Scipios after his death. Truly, if what Hamartolus affirms in his as-yet-inedited *Chronicle*—and Cedrenus from Hamartolus—is true, confirming on the testimony of Allatius *Litteris de Georgiis* that the Pisidan addressed favorable words before everyone to Heraclius, who was about to go to this war and was asking God for aid against the enemies in the Great Church, we think it can be not undeservedly inferred from this that he, who was brilliant in his reputation for talent and marked by some title of honor, had already been chosen as one of the emperor’s companions. But he himself, knowing how great would be the commendation of his own name, did not hesitate to accompany Heraclius with good omens, through a specific poetic license, unless you prefer to say he was driven by divine frenzy. For Cedrenus says (p. 420): "The emperor, wishing to set out toward Persia... having entered the Great Church, having put on black footwear, and having fallen prostrate, he prayed... seeing whom, George the Pisidan said of this humility: 'O Emperor, you who have wrapped the black-dyed sandal, dye your foot red with Persian blood.'" I was clearly led to suspect that Cedrenus had fashioned only two of these five iambics to suit his own temperament. But since those two senarii are most celebrated and known on the lips of all the more recent Greeks, and furthermore are read separately written and repeated in the Vatican codex 1126 and other codices, as appears from our own notes in the *Fragmenta Pisidae* v. 20, I did not dare to reject altogether this fictitious little tale about George and Heraclius. For I was not ignorant that a custom had once prevailed in the Byzantine court that poets would recite their own elaborations before the kings and patriarchs themselves, and these *akroaseis* (you might call them "auscultations" or readings) ap-
were called so because they were read publicly and openly in the hearing of the people. I shall introduce as a witness Paul the Silentiary, who recited the first part of his description of the church of St. Sophia in the royal palace before the Emperor Justinian, and the second part in the episcopal residence before the Patriarch Eutychius, as is made manifest by the iambic verses and the titles inscribed upon the poem. That this should appear even more credible to Cedrenus is justified by that custom formerly accepted at Constantinople of constantly acclaiming the emperors, which very often also took place in iambic verse, as can be seen in the *De Ceremoniis aulae Byzantinae* of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, edited in recent years by Johann Heinrich Leich and Johann Jacob Reiske. For it is read there, on page 16, that when the emperor proceeds with great pomp to the holy and great Church on the Lord's Day for divine services, the acclamations of the factions take place, and the notary of the Venetians is present, and he is required to walk behind the lords nearby, and to say the iambics according to the established form; then the master of the Green faction begins to recite iambics. Then the master of the Venetian faction begins to recite iambics, until the notary of the Green faction also begins his own iambic recitation as far as the Holy Well. That this was customary in all solemn processions is shown at various points by the same Constantine. Hence, although it is sufficiently apparent that the iambics which were recited by the heads of the factions were a hymn or a short ditty by which they might, in alternate turns, pray for prosperity for the emperor, nonetheless it becomes more probable from this that Pisidas greeted Heraclius, who was praying in the great temple, with the iambics praised by Cedrenus as if extemporaneously.
But whatever the judgment of learned men may be on this matter, this one thing I gather from what has been argued thus far: that Pisidas, if not as the great *skeuophylax*, was certainly one of the deacon *skeuophylakes*, a man clearly held in high favor by Sergius and Heraclius, seeing that he excelled greatly in genius and the faculty of writing. But one must not listen at all to those who make him now a *chartophylax*, now a *referendarius*. Suidas, indeed, in his entry under *Georgios*, calls him a deacon and *chartophylax*, whereas Nicephorus Callistus, *Hist.* 18, 48, calls him a *referendarius*. There is also the greatest inconsistency among the manuscript codices regarding the title and dignity assigned to Pisidas: for in the codices of the Royal Library of Paris and in some Vatican ones he is called only a deacon; and in the Vienna codex 209 in Lambecius, lib. v, p. 19, he is called deacon and *referendarius*, and in lib. vi, p. 162, deacon and *chartophylax*; and likewise in the Turin Library codex 304, he is called *chartophylax*; and in codex 360 he is called *referendarius*. The very learned Fabricius, lib. vii, p. 691, wrongly joined both titles together and declared our George to be both *chartophylax* and *referendarius*: for whatever his dignity may have been, he certainly could not have been *chartophylax* and *referendarius* at the same time, because those were two distinct offices in the Constantinopolitan Church, which one person would not discharge, but which were distributed to two individuals. Allatius, relying on the testimony of Suidas, is better, and Oudinus, following Allatius, named George a deacon and *chartophylax*. But William Cave, writing less accurately, and wandering shamefully in the whole article he wove concerning Pisidas, made him both a rhetorician and *chartophylax* of the Great Church of Constantinople, and then also Metropolitan or Archbishop of Nicomedia. If Cave had called Pisidas a poet instead of a rhetorician, there would be no controversy: but none of his works survive written in the manner of the rhetoricians, nor is it handed down that he ever labored on anything similar; but Cave, led by the same error as those who were deceived before him, made him a rhetorician and Archbishop of Nicomedia, confusing George Pisidas with George of Nicomedia, because they had found both men called "George" and "chartophylax" in several codices; although no one, as far as I know, called Pisidas a rhetorician except Cave, who, as it seems, allowed himself to be deceived either by a codex of the library of Antonius Augustinus, in which an oration *On "They stood by the cross of Jesus"* was read under the name of George the rhetorician, bishop of Nicomedia, or by the Vienna codices in Lambecius, lib. v, p. 244 and 277, and lib. viii, p. 222, in all of which that same oration appears under the name of "George, Archbishop of Nicomedia, the rhetorician." When he had once decided to make one person out of the two Georges, he did not hesitate at all to transfer the title of rhetorician, which was attributed to the Nicomedian, to Pisidas. But there are many signs by which these two Georges may be easily distinguished from each other; for Pisidas, as has been said, lived under Heraclius and was a deacon and *skeuophylax* and poet, whereas the Nicomedian—from whom Possevinus, in his *Appendix to the Apparatus Sacer*, rashly (and with Lambecius protesting in lib. i, p. 135, and lib. iv, p. 21) constructed a certain Nicomedian—flourished in the time of Photius, and, if faith is to be placed in the titles of the codices related by Allatius in the same dissertation *On the Georges*, was later made Archbishop of Nicomedia. Combefis seems to have been the first of all to be deceived in correctly distinguishing these two Georges: but he recognized and confessed his error in the *Bibliotheca Concionatoria*, in which he exhibits the sermons of George of Nicomedia, which he had previously given in Greek and Latin in volume 1 of his *Auctarium Novum*, mostly from an interpolated text, and some from his new version, only in Latin. But lest we leave anything untouched in defining this matter, it will be helpful to hear Allatius, who, writing about our George, says in clear words: "Whether he was later promoted to the episcopacy of Nicomedia, being the same as George of Nicomedia, to whom several not unpraiseworthy panegyrical orations are attributed (which Allatius lists in the same place while dealing with George of Nicomedia), will not without merit be able to be called into doubt." Yet that this man is distinct from the George of Nicomedia who, in the times of Photius, lent his own labors to Photius himself in the Photian synod, the very spans of years abundantly prove; for between Patriarch Sergius, to whom Pisidas inscribed his *Hexaemeron*, and the Photian times, two hundred and fifty years more or less intervene. If he was Bishop of Nicomedia, he will therefore be completely different from this one. And that he was a bishop, perhaps we may not be poorly persuaded: for the oration on the words of John, "They stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother and his mother's sister," the beginning of which is "To the Most High, the discourse is directed unto us," is ascribed to George of Nicomedia in manuscript codices, but in another manuscript codex which it was my chance to see on Chios, in which the same oration is read more fully and at much greater length, it adds the surname "Pisidas" to George of Nicomedia: for thus it is read, "Of George, Metropolitan of Nicomedia, the Pisidian"—a slip of the scribe, to whom these things
commonly happen when titles are being prefixed, he will admit. I shall not argue against it; indeed, I grant the slip. For "Pissidelas," which was read in the exemplar—as is most likely—was changed by the copyist, who was attending to few things, into "Pissidem." And he is also different from another George, Bishop of Pisidia, whose memory the Greeks celebrate on the 19th of April, a martyr by the arrogance and tyranny of the Iconoclasts, since the latter was the prelate of Antioch in Pisidia: A *This holy man lived during the times of the Iconoclasts, having been dedicated to God from infancy, and because of his surpassing virtue he was ordained bishop of Antioch in Pisidia.* However, I do not think I should linger any longer on a matter that is most obscure. Thus Allatius; yet why he calls it an obscure matter, which he himself has explained so clearly, I do not know. For it is plain that George Pisidas is different from the Nicomedian, and that it has been accepted as one person only by certain learned men, because both were inscribed in the codices as George and as *chartophylax*. But we now at last, so that there may be no occasion for doubt any longer, let us leave the title of *chartophylax* to George of Nicomedia, and let us name George Pisidas the *skeuophylax*, relying on the authority of the Vatican codex, than which no other exists in so many libraries that is written either more anciently or more elegantly, as must be said below. Moreover, the authority of this codex, which we deem should be followed, is in no way undermined by the authority of Suidas and Nicephorus, who called George either *chartophylax* or *referendarius*: for it is certain that many things were added to the lexicon of Suidas by later Greeks, and Nicephorus speaks so negligently of Pisidas (which is clear from verse 533 of the Poem against Severus and from Fragment v. 184) that he does not seem to deserve attention at all.
However, since there exists no testimony concerning the writings of Pisidas more ancient than that which is found in the same Suidas, it will be better to place this very thing before the eyes of the readers and to consider it a little more attentively: for although Allatius, Kuster, and Fabricius have weighed the individual words of Suidas very accurately, it will still fall to us to observe some things. These words are: *George, deacon of the Great Church and chartophylax, surnamed Pisides, the Hexaemeron in iambics to the number of three thousand verses, on Heraclius the emperor, and on the war against the Persians, furthermore also the Abarica, and an encomium on the martyr Anastasius.* Therefore, the things which our George wrote, according to the testimony of Suidas, are these: 1. Hexaemeron, 2. on Heraclius, 3. On the Persian War, and it has fallen to our lot to find small works of the same author which are not mentioned by Suidas, either because he himself had no knowledge of them, or because—which to us does not seem likely to be true—he thought they were to be held in contempt. B And 1. concerning the Hexaemeron, which he affirms was a long poem, consisting of three thousand senarii, I would hesitate completely as to whether this could ever have been true, since it appears nowhere that the Hexaemeron is mutilated, and from all the codices diligently searched and unrolled, it has been possible for us to collect scarcely two thousand iambics. Wherefore I could not persuade myself that so many verses had perished, and I was thinking to myself that a mistake had crept into the text of Suidas, so that instead of *three thousand* [p. X] one should read *two thousand*. However, if it pleases some that even a few verses torn away from this poem are missing, I will not deny it: for since the whole consists of many parts and members, as it were, nothing is clearly easier than that through the carelessness of copyists one or another may have perished and flowed away from those descriptions which the author perhaps presented concerning the qualities of stones, plants, and animals. And the codices themselves seem to confirm this, in all of which, if you except the one Vatican 1126, you will find the Hexaemeron wrongly written, interpolated, and mutilated. 2. On Heraclius the emperor, which Suidas testifies that Pisidas wrote, are clearly three *acroases* (public readings), which occur immediately at the beginning of this volume under this title: *On the expedition of Heraclius the emperor against the Persians.* Kuster was the first of all to judge that this work, along with others which are hereafter praised by Suidas, has perished, and after him Cave, who also foists upon us from his own mind *acroases* dealing with Heraclius, containing *the history of the deeds done by Heraclius and the Persian war*. I wish Pisidas had written a history rather than dry little verses, from which one can often scarcely divine what he himself thinks. Oudin had learned from Maltret’s preface to Procopius that all the works of Pisidas mentioned by Suidas existed in the Vatican library, but he too, led into error with Cave, supposed that Pisidas had left us a History of the affairs of Heraclius. Thence, as I think, their error arose, because before Maltret it was not sufficiently clear from the text of Suidas which things our George had written bound in meter and which he had handed down to posterity in prose, as we shall soon say. 3. Concerning the Persian War which Suidas adds that Pisidas wrote, it must be referred to the twin *acroases*, which, distinguished by the grand and excessively turgid title of "Heracliados," you will find here under number V of the works of Pisidas. Allatius wrongly judged the Heracliad to be one work with the former; and it seems clearly strange that such a man could be deceived, who dealt with the Georges in a professional manner, who wrote so learnedly about Pisidas, who was a most deserving prefect of the Vatican library and clearly second to none, who finally, which is the greatest thing of all, performed the duty of this prefecture so laudably after Holstenius, from whom Maltret had received the little works of Pisidas himself. However, it must be said by all means that Allatius, who had searched all the treasures of his library, was nevertheless, I know not by what chance, unaware of this codex from which Holstenius first and then we ourselves drew Georgius’s writings: for he makes no mention of that codex anywhere. 4. As regards the Abarica, which is praised in the fourth place by Suidas, but placed by us in the second, it is certain, just as for the other three of which we have treated, that these works were written in iambics. For those who, with Cave and Oudin, thought that Pisidas poured out all these in prose are entirely mistaken, because in the previous editions of Suidas they had read in print [Greek text omitted]. But Kuster first correctly conjectured from the Parisian MS that the word [Greek text omitted] is to be referred to what follows, and later Fabricius, having been informed by Maltret, confirmed it; wherefore that text is to be punctuated exactly thus: [Greek text omitted]. For what Suidas proposes as the fifth work of Pisidas, the Encomium of the martyr Anastasius, indeed
it is written in prose, and treats truly of Anastasius the Persian, not of some Athanasius, as Kusterus suspected from a Parisian manuscript of Suidas, in which he affirms that for “of Anastasius” is read “of the great Athanasius,” which reading is certainly not to be preferred to the vulgate. [p. XI] Now, concerning all the works of Pisidas, and concerning the order in which we have deemed they should be edited, let us say a few words; for these matters have been treated more fully in the particular premonitions prefixed to each poem. Therefore, what could be found hitherto (if indeed George wrote anything else besides what we are bringing to light) is as follows.
1. *Upon the Expedition of Emperor Heraclius against the Persians*, there are three acroases, containing 1,098 iambics, in which the virtue and religion of Heraclius are lauded with almost immoderate praise, because he moved arms against Persia by reason of the impiety and treachery of King Chosroes: “For it was not out of Persian greed, but they extended their appetites to slaughter,” as an acroasis says (book 1, verse 196). And so Heraclius, having celebrated Easter and armed with an image of the Savior, embarked on a ship, set sail from the Heraclean promontory, and, having been tossed by a storm at first, arrived in Cilicia. Having held a levy of soldiers there, he equipped everyone for battle, and once equipped, he pushed them into Persia, from which, having reported a victory, he was intent on bursting into the interior of Persia; but when the Barbarians, as was their custom, broke their treaties and plotted to invade the royal city, he was forced to return to Byzantium: “Whence, having composed everything in a prudent manner, and having yoked the army to the general, and having given to God the hopes concerning them, you hurry back to the city itself, having done and accomplished so many things.” Thus Pisidas concludes his third book of *Acroases* concerning the first expedition of Heraclius into Persia, in which he follows everything quite diligently; for he was writing of what was done before his eyes, as was observed above. But Pagius, in his comments on Baronius (ann. 626, 4), hoped in vain that he could supply what was omitted by the chroniclers in the history of Heraclius, because he believed that Pisidas, writing of the Persian war, had not diligently performed the duty of a historian, but of a poet. For he says: “That omission can be supplied only from Georgius Pisidas, the contemporary author, who edited three books *On the Persian War*, which Holstenius had.” Wherefore, since he bequeathed all his manuscripts to the Most Eminent Cardinal Francisco Barberini, I asked the distinguished V. C. Schelestratius, prefect of the Vatican Library, if he would, out of his benevolence toward me, copy from Pisidas what he recounts to have been done in the sixth year of the Persian war. But that most learned man wrote back to me that he had studiously gone through all the manuscripts of the Barberini Library, especially those which were Holstenius’s, kept separately there, but that nothing by Georgius Pisidas had come to his attention. Therefore, another path must be taken by us in order to be able to exhibit the whole history of this war. And so it is: for neither did Pisidas pursue everything that pertains to the Persian war, nor did Holstenius bring the books of Pisidas into the Barberini library, but sent to Maltreto copies made from the Vatican [p. XII]. Moreover, this poem, about which more has been said elsewhere, is the first of all the works of Pisidas, and consequently it had to be placed in the first rank. For what follows pertains to those things that were done after the 12th year of the reign of the same Heraclius, Christ 622; into which year falls the aforementioned first Persian expedition.
2. *On the Incursion made by the Barbarians and on their frustrated plan, or exposition of the war which was waged at the walls of Constantinople between the Avars and the citizens.* Of this poem, which consists of 541 senarii, Allatius made no mention; which clearly confirms that he had not seen the Vatican codex from which it was taken. Byzantine writers discuss at length the Avars, who with other savage tribes attempted again and again to invade the Roman dominion and to lay it waste with fire and sword. We have said what is sufficient in the premonition and notes to this poem. Heraclius, having undertaken a second war against Chosroes, had immediately conducted the matter so brilliantly that in the course of the year 626, Chosroes, driven to desperation, arrived, as Theophanes says (p. 263), and having recruited men from every class, including citizens and servants, decided to try the final extreme. Indeed, he sent Sarbaras with the rest of the army toward Constantinople, so that, having concluded pacts with the Huns (they call them Avars), the Avars, Slavs, and Gepids might all together, having made an assault on the city, attack it. But as in Persia, so also at Chalcedon, the hopes of the Persians fell, and the Avars, their allies, were routed and slain by the help of God and the Virgin Mother of God. Indeed, Pisidas contends that the city was saved from the machinations of the Barbarians not so much by art and arms as by a miracle. For he establishes that the prince-leader of this war against the Avars was the Virgin and then Patriarch Sergius, who received the Virgin’s commands, poured out into prayers and tears, and carried them out. Therefore he addresses her thus, v. 254: “You, having the Virgin as a fellow-soldier according to custom, you were counter-maneuvering in heartless fashion with the instruments of the struggles of the opponents. For you had the hope of God as walls, and tears as arrows.” But what is true is that there was fierce fighting by land and sea, as is understood from the *Chronicon Paschale*, p. 391 et seqq. Although the citizens of Constantinople behaved themselves strenuously in this war, and Heraclius, detained in Persia, was greatly worried about the safety of the city (v. 278), nevertheless it would have been the ultimate [p. XIII] destruction of the city, if the shield and defense from heaven had not present arrived. Furthermore, if credence is to be given to the author of the *Chronicon Paschale*, the Avar leader Chagan himself desisted from the storming of the city only because he was terrified, having seen the Mother of God fighting for the Constantinopolitans: “And he was saying this at the very time of the war, that ‘I see a woman walking majestically on the wall by herself.’”
A Since it was written after the victory gained in the recently mentioned war, no one, I confess, has cataloged it among the works of Pisides. We have set forth in its own place the reasoning and arguments by which we were led to believe that this should be done. If, however, our conjectures seem too weak and light to anyone, they may clearly attribute this hymn to anyone else rather than to Pisides. But that Pisides did indeed write it, to omit other matters, is made more probable by the fact that he himself, in the preceding poem after the description of the Abaric war, exhorts the people of Constantinople to sing a hymn (v. 502).
4. B In holy resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, of God. It is a brief poem, consisting of 129 senarii, in which Pisides, taking the occasion from the great feast of Pascha, imbues the son of Heraclius, Flavius Constantinus, with Christian precepts and inflames him to imitate the illustrious deeds of his father. The poet wrote these lines around the year 627, at the time when Heraclius, having set out for Persia again, completely conquered Chosroes. For he exhorts his son (v. 112) to apply himself to the study of eloquence, so that, fortified by it, he might be able to congratulate his father upon his return and to commend his virtue and piety: “But adorn the shield of the Word, so that before all you may be found a leader, setting forth those labors of your father which he performs for all every day.”
5. C *Concerning the complete fall of King Chosroes*, Heraclius saw the destruction of the Persian king. There are two acroases, in which Pisides rapidly and cursorily [p. XIV] narrates all the things done by Heraclius both at home and in war, which was the reason, I believe, that he imposed the title *Heracliad* upon them: for as far as it concerns the final defeat of Chosroes or the second war against the Persians, he touches upon that quite lightly, although this is the principal scope of the argument and he intends the discourse toward that from the beginning; but since he was not present for the first, but rather for the second expedition, and since he knew the events that had taken place quite obscurely, he was forced to wander and digress into praises of Heraclius, omitting those things that were more worthy of being told and known. For he, being all too impatient of delay, set his hand to this work, as it seems, immediately upon the news regarding the subjection of Persia and the death of Chosroes being brought to Constantinople, and he wished to meet his victorious master with these very verses, happy and full of joy. Pisides would have done something clearly more pleasing and more useful, had he put off his work until the time when the Emperor returned to the city; for then he could have heard and handed down to us those things which are now to be despaired of as ever being known. As it is, he implies events so lightly that one must often guess at what his mind is aiming. Allatius, who, as has already been said, thought the *Heracliad* was one and the same with the aforementioned work *On the Expedition*, affirms that certain things taken from it are cited by John Tzetzes in *Chiliad* 3, hist. 66: He says, indeed, that he produces eight iambics of Pisides, which are in the fashion of that most elegant poet. But besides the fact that you would search in vain for these eight iambics (for there are seven) in Pisides, it is certain that they are Tzetzes' own, as Fabricius correctly observed before us and as is demonstrated more fully by us in the notes to acroases 1, 23, and 2, 236.
6. D *Hexaemeron, or on the creation of the world*. This poem, which certainly excels other works of Pisides, was edited first of all by Frederick Morell, son of Frederick, the royal printer, together with the senarii *On the vanity of life* and other fragments in Greek and Latin at Paris, 1584, 8vo, and by his care and diligence it came about immediately that the name of Pisides, having been consigned to oblivion for many centuries, began to revive and to fly through the mouths of lovers of Greek. But what might surprise you, Jerome Brunellus, S.J., a few years later published this same work of the *Hexaemeron* under the name of Cyril of Alexandria, together with certain poems of Nazianzen and hymns of Synesius, in Greek only, with this title: *Of our Father among the saints Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, concerning the nature of animals and plants, in iambic verses*, Rome, at the press of Franciscus Zannettus, 1590, 8vo. But whether the book was rightly attributed to Cyril, the same Brunellus seems to have doubted: for he thus says: “In the Preface, we have added an iambic poem on the properties of plants and animals, which I had received as a gift from D. Gonsalvo Ponce de Leon, a man no less preeminent in erudition than in nobility of birth, who himself had seen to it that it be transcribed after the example of Cardinal William Sirlet.” It is indeed attributed, as it seems, to Cyril of Alexandria, who was once and still is the light not only of all Greece, but of the entire orthodox Church, because of his illustrious monuments of genius and doctrine. Nor do I personally intervene with a judgment about the author of this little work; but certainly, whomever it may belong to, it does not seem to depart in any way from the most ancient and grave Fathers, either in the charm and elegance of its words or, what is the head of the matter, in its pious and religious doctrine. For it shows the infinite majesty of that most excellent and divine nature, its singular beneficence toward all mortals, and its admirable wisdom, especially that which shines in created things, and its incredible fatherly providence and care in protecting and governing all things, both greatest and least [p. XV], so that it can easily lead the minds of those who read it to the knowledge of the true God and inflame them to his love. Furthermore, he pursues the individual powers of plants and the faculties of living creatures in such elegant and well-ordered verse that he gathers into a small space and places under one almost unified view not only the books of Theophrastus and Aristotle, but also the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite and the rest of the Fathers concerning the most august nature of God and the mysteries of Christ our Liberator. We have been pleased to report these things from Brunellus, both because they are quite beautifully said regarding the *Hexaemeron* of Pisides, and also because the praises heaped upon the author of the work pertain to Pisides himself. For that Brunellus did not harbor the slightest suspicion regarding our Georgius, this was clearly because he had, it seems, no knowledge of the Morellian edition, and he himself happened upon a manuscript which bore the false title of Cyril, as will be demonstrated more openly when we address the manuscripts containing the works of Pisides.
A We must also speak of these things. Nor indeed should Allatius be excused, who in the same place B asserts that the edition of the Hexaemeron procured by Brunellus at Rome is earlier than the edition made by Morellius in Paris, and yet admits that the Roman one is of the year 1590 and the Parisian of the year 1584. But concerning this very Parisian edition, which Allatius assigns to the year 1584, but Fabricius to 1585, so that I may omit nothing that could create doubt, I will also mention this: I have seen two copies in the Vatican Library, one of which bears the year 1584, the other 1585, but there is no difference, however slight, between the two. Surely it is not reasonable to believe that the same book was published twice in two years immediately following one another, but rather that the edition itself was begun toward the end of the year 1584 and extended to the beginning of 1585, which the dedicatory epistle of the same Morellius to Cardinal Sirlet seems to suggest: for it is dated the third day of the month of October of the expiring year 1584. Moreover, a few years later, the same work was exactly, though less elegantly, reprinted from the Morellian edition at Heidelberg under this title: *'Εξαήμερον ἤτοι ἡ κοσμουργία του Πισίδου διακόνου καὶ χαρτοφύλακος τῆς μεγάλης τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκκλησίας. Τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἰαμβεῖα εἰς τὸν μάταιον βίον* — The Six Days' Work, or the Cosmopoeia of George Pisides, deacon and referendary of the Constantinopolitan Church. Iambics of the same on the vanity of life, from the press of H. Commelinus, 1596, 8vo; in which title I do not at all understand why Pisides, who is inscribed in Greek as *chartophylax*, is called in Latin *referendarius*; but this was an error of Morellius, who was the first to render *chartophylax* as *referendarius*. C Furthermore, I know of no other separate editions of the same Hexaemeron that have been made, but joined with other poets or Fathers it has appeared time and again. For it exists in Greek and Latin in the *Corpus of Greek Tragic and Comic Poets*, Geneva, 1614, vol. II, p. 241, as also in the Bignean Appendix to the *Bibliotheca Patrum*, Paris, 1624, p. 387, and in the Morellian edition of the *Bibliotheca Patrum*, Paris, 1644–1654, vol. XIV; but in Latin only in the *Bibliotheca Patrum*, Paris, 1589, vol. VIII, p. 318, and in volume XII of the *Bibliotheca Patrum*, Lyon edition, p. 525. But none of those who have so often put their hand to the reprinting of the works of Pisides dared to depart in the slightest from Morellius, nor to add or change anything, and all have rested entirely on his authority. We, however, do not complain of the diligence of Morellius in publishing the Greek text: for he did not adorn his edition from the same Sirlet manuscript which Brunellus later used, as Fabricius foolishly asserted [p. XVI] t. VII, p. 692, but he sought out and reviewed several manuscripts from everywhere, as he himself affirms in the aforementioned dedicatory epistle. D However, we do not sufficiently approve of his translation from the Greek, which, by a very harsh law prescribed for himself, that he should express the iambics of Pisides with an equal number of Latin iambics, he rendered so obscure and unrefined in many places that I have heard more than one learned man, not initiated in Greek letters, confess that they could grasp no help at all for understanding from it. Therefore I have decided to set up a new translation from scratch. But lest we seem to be priding ourselves too much while disparaging the work of others, we have placed the Morellian text side-by-side, and we have placed our own at the extreme margin of the book, so that everyone may read and follow the one they prefer. And indeed our intention was also to render iambics with iambics, but fearing that what we consider a fault in Morellius might happen also to us (for we know how difficult it is to want to declare the verses of an obscure poet in an equal number of verses), we have therefore prepared a somewhat freer translation, concerned only with the sense and force of the words. Moreover, we have expended much effort in illustrating the Hexaemeron: for we have prefixed prolegomena and added annotations, so that the greatest work of Pisides might emerge into the light, whole in every part, and require no other helping hand in the future. In the Greek edition of Brunellus, the poem consists of 1860 iambics, in the Greek-Latin of Morellius of 1880. Ours displays up to 1910 verses: for we have taken care to restore to their own places some senarii omitted elsewhere and gleaned here and there from manuscripts. Nor, as it seems, is there any longer any hope that these senarii will grow to a larger number, although Suidas testifies, as was said above, that the Hexaemeron once consisted of three thousand, and Labbeus, p. 385 of the *New Library of Manuscripts*, from the Catalogue of Scipio Tettius, mentions the Cosmopoeia of Pisides as comprising three thousand verses. The work was undertaken at the urging of Patriarch Sergius, and dedicated to him with many commendations of praise. In it, under the roof of the name of Proclus, it first came into the mind of Cave, and then also of Oudin, that John Philoponus was intended, which is discussed more broadly by us in the Prolegomena: but Cave and Oudin themselves erroneously judged from this that this work is the same as the poem which Nicephorus, lib. XVIII, cap. 48, reveals was written by our George *μέτροις ἀρίστοις ὥσπερ εἴθιστο γράφειν* [in the best meters, as he was accustomed to write], against Philoponus; for we shall soon demonstrate that Nicephorus erred and that the conjecture derived from Cave is entirely false, when we speak of the poem on Severus. Moreover, the Cosmopoeia of Pisides is entirely filled with pious sentiments, by which the human mind is most highly aroused to contemplate the divine majesty from created things. This work was written, as it seems, around the year 629, the time when Heraclius, the second war having been finished, had already brought Persia under his rule. For thus does Pisides pray to Sergius on behalf of Heraclius, v. 1845: *Καὶ δὸς τὸν ἐκ σοῦ προσλαβόντα τὸ κράτος τὸν κοσμοστῆν, τὸν διώκτην Περσίδος, μᾶλλον δὲ τὸν σώσαντα καὶ τὴν Περσίδα, ὅλον κρατῆσαι τὸν ὑφήλιον τόπον* [p. XVII]. And after a few other iambics interjected, v. 1866: *Οὕτω γὰρ ἕξει πιστὰ νικητήρια νίκης κατ' ἐχθρῶν ἀξιωθεὶς δευτέρας, ὡς τοὺς ἀδούλους πυρπολήσας Βαρβάρους*. [Here follows a reference to the] Hexaemeron of Morellius, and it has been reprinted as often as the Hexaemeron itself has been sent to the press. Everyone after Morellius has reported that it is mutilated and imperfect, who, as it appears, found in the manuscript he used those words at the end which signify the defect of the work among the Greeks, that is to say: *λείπει τάλλα*. But
we have neither found these words in the Vatican codex, nor do we understand from the sense itself that anything is missing, although no one will deny that other arguments congruent with the subject could have been added by Pisidas; but whether he did so or not is entirely uncertain. The work, as it now stands, consists of 262 iambic verses. Oudinus asserts that it contains 20 chapters, and that it tacitly argues against John Philoponus: but by what reasons he is led to affirm this, we are ignorant. For neither does any distinction of chapters appear in the poem, nor is there anywhere a slight judgment regarding John Philoponus. Wherefore it is certain to us that Oudinus has erred, who did not hesitate to transfer to this work, at his own discretion, the judgment which others brought regarding the *Hexaemeron*. Moreover, this short poem is also inscribed to Patriarch Sergius, whom Pisidas, as usual, extols with huge praises, and proposes as a kind of signal example of humility against proud and swollen men, v. 233: *If you tread upon the air, you were humble and you go along with the lowly.* But there is no note of time from which you could conjecture when Pisidas wrote this little work. Wherefore, since it claims no certain seat for itself, we have not wished to separate it from the *Hexaemeron*, of which, if you look at the similarity of the argument, it might seem to be a kind of appendix. We have judged that the old translation of Morel—which is also preserved in the *Hexaemeron*—should be retained; newly we have placed it under the text, consulting for the clarity of the work, as far as in us lay.
8. B *Against the impious Severus of Antioch*. A poem consisting of 731 iambic verses, often so obscure and complex that I have often had to change my style and scratch my head when I thought of rendering it. That Pisidas is the author of the work is not to be doubted: for besides the fact that the style is the same and clearly suitable to Georgius, in the Vatican codex it is attached to other writings of his with this title: *By the same, against Severus*. And furthermore, Pisidas himself is a most ample witness to himself at the beginning and at the end of the poem, saying that he acted perhaps too imprudently, having turned his mind from describing the deeds performed in war by Heraclius to treating lighly of dogmatic questions: *It was better, having been freed from the storm of the Barbarians and the armed tempest of weapons, to be at peace along with the battles, since the most powerful benefactor, by means of his own spiritual surgery, removed the worldly illness that was pulsing.* With these iambs, which you may read at the beginning of the work, v. 24, Pisidas openly designates the Abaric and Persian war successfully undertaken by Heraclius and described by himself. But he demonstrates this even more clearly at the end, v. 693, turning to the same emperor and saying: *Support the conclusion of what I have said with your own tones of speech. For I did not have skilled discourses on dogmas, but always luxuriating in your strategies, I sketched out the downfalls of tyrants and the routs of enemies and the manifold and multiform struggles of yours.* That it is Georgius Pisidas who would write thus about Heraclius and about himself, no one will clearly deny. But yet there will be some for whom wonder will first arise from the fact that there is a deep silence about this poem in Suidas, who otherwise seems quite diligent in reviewing the works of Pisidas; and then, that not even Maltretus himself, who had thought of editing all these same works, made any mention of it. But Suidas, or whoever inserted the article on Georgius Pisidas into Suidas, did not know all his writings at all: for he says nothing about the above-praised little works *on the Resurrection* and *on the Vain Life*; nor did he give us any suspicion of others that may perhaps have been lost, as can be gathered from fragments. Maltretus, however, who, as it seems, had only understood from Suidas what Georgius had written, sought that those very things which he had found described in Suidas be sent to him by Holstenius, and he promised he would edit only those that were received. Therefore, Pisidas wrote this poem around the year 630, at which time Heraclius, having been freed from the Persian war, had turned himself to settling the troubles stirred up by the Monophysites in the Church: for it is openly declared in v. 72: *Since even now the practical and wise strategy of a calm mode went beyond the Scriptures after the Barbarians, so that he who persuaded the Barbarians to be at peace, might persuade the heresies to be at peace along with them.* Against whom, however, and with what mind Georgius wrote these things, we have discussed at length in the *Monitum*, which precedes this very poem. He is rightly entitled *against Severus*: for whoever you say he is whom Pisidas attacks under this name, the errors of Monophysitism are clearly refuted here, of which heresy the same Severus was the greatest patron. But our own opinion is that, under the name of Severus, some bishop is understood who was then at that time fiercely defending the tenets and doctrine of Severus against catholic dogmas, and who existed as the head and father of this sect after Severus and others of his followers; for we do not concede to Allatius and others, who followed his authority, that it is John Philoponus—who flourished in Severus's time and stood first on Severus's side, but then, departing from him, established the sect of Tritheism, as has been declared in the *Prolegomena to the Hexaemeron*. And why, indeed, would you prefer that Pisidas, in these iambs of his, attacks Philoponus—about whom nothing occurs in the whole poem—rather than Severus himself, who is explicitly named? But Nicephorus Callistus led Allatius and others into error by numbering our Georgius among those who wrote against Philoponus, l. xviii, c. 48: *And after this (that is, after Leontius the monk) also the wonderful deacon and referendary Georgius Pisidas, being of the same age as him, although much younger in time, in excellent iambic measures, as he was accustomed to write, opposing the aforesaid heresy, and blending play with earnestness, thus runs through it, strongly refuting the absurdity. He votes quickly for "one" and "one"; for if you say "one" and "one" is one, what is said becomes a laughingstock even to children. And he says: "Such it is: You confess, O most industrious and most philosophical one, that two natures have been united to the Word, one of the divinity and one of the humanity; if therefore you say two natures are…"
A united to Him, how do you again reduce the two into one? He says: for one and one are two, but not one. It would be laughable, therefore, if someone were to predicate two things of the same subject, and then again make such things into one. We confess, however, that all these things were stated correctly by Nicephorus for the sake of explaining the words of Pisides, but we deny that Pisides himself is here attacking Philoponus. For the principal error of Philoponus was his failure B to distinguish the hypostases from the natures, and consequently his affirmation of three natures in the Most Holy Trinity, whence he is heard everywhere as a Tritheite; the iambics which Nicephorus brings forth from Pisides do nothing to refute this opinion. The error, however, of Severus and all the Monophysites was to assert one nature out of two in Christ after the union, that is, in the incarnation; the delusions of which madness you could not better uncover and impugn than by saying with Pisides: "Hearken, you, Severus: if, without your objecting, one is the nature of the divinity, but another is the nature of the humanity in Christ, how do you say that they are one and the same? Will not this be a laughingstock even to children, who clearly know that not one comes from one and one, but that two natures coalesce?" And that these things are to be taken in this way, the context of the work clearly demonstrates: for the iambics lauded by Nicephorus are twisted against Severus in this way and in this clear sense, as can be seen in verses 633 et seqq. From this, moreover, you may also clearly gather that all the writers after Nicephorus were hallucinating, who, with him as their guide, declared that Pisides was attacking Philoponus with these senarii. Thus, Allatius, at first relying on this testimony of Nicephorus, did not hesitate to assert that our George had attacked John Philoponus and the heresy of his followers in some writing; Cave and Oudinus, moved by the authority and faith of this same Nicephorus, held it as a certain fact that Pisides had written against Philoponus; but since they were ignorant of the fact that this work was written against Philoponus, they mixed everything up wrongly and confused them into one, and supposed that it was no other than that Hexaemeron: when, however, they noticed that Proclus was named in that poem, they supposed there was no other way of reconciling Pisides with Nicephorus than to say that under the mask of the name of Proclus, Philoponus was meant. But Fabricius does not concede to Oudinus and Cave that it is the same one work against Philoponus as the Hexaemeron, nor does he agree with Allatius, who admits a singular poem against the same Philoponus, but rather thinks that Pisides only highlighted the tritheism of Philoponus and his temerity in counting in divine matters with those three verses alone. But that it is now evident that all these things were affirmed less correctly out of each man's own ingenuity is clear from this poem against Severus, in which Pisides attacks Severus himself, not Philoponus. Whether Niceta Choniates, whom Allatius says in lib. X of the *Thesaurus of the Orthodox Faith* against the Monophysites cites the same three verses, says that they were written against Philoponus, I simply do not know; for although I have searched very studiously for the codices of this *Thesaurus* in the Roman libraries, it has not fallen to my lot to find them anywhere; so that I was altogether wondering from where Allatius had drawn this testimony of Niceta. Recently, however, when I had come to Florence, which was honorable for the lucky arrival of the most clement prince, I diligently unrolled the codex of the Mediceo-Laurentian library containing the *Thesaurus* of Niceta, and read the tenth book repeatedly, nor did I detect any mention of Pisides anywhere. Therefore, a suspicion arose in me that perhaps in that codex some things were omitted from those which were read in the Allatian [copy]. For I must confess, just as Niceta brought in the mention of Pisides, he ought clearly to have done so in the book which Allatius designates: for there the opinions of various authors regarding Monophysitism are recounted very appositely.
C ...testified by Allatius to be a manuscript in the library of Antonius Augustinus. We finally found, after a long search, in the aforementioned Mediceo-Laurentian library, plut. 9, n. 13: but we were only able to obtain a transcript of it at a great price, and what is harder, it was also necessary to send it to Florence again and compare it with the autograph, because the scribe, with a useless and plainly ridiculous diligence, had attempted to express all the characters of the codex and the strokes of the letters, with the result that they could not be read. From which fact it is a wonder how many annoyances arose for me: for five whole years passed in succession before I received this large task accomplished. That Pisides is the author of the encomium or oration, both the affinity of the time and the subject matter, and the native consanguinity of the style with his own style make us believe; all of which, as it seems to us at least, are demonstrated clearly enough. Moreover, this one minor work of Pisides exists, written in prose: for whether he wrote others in this way, we can neither affirm nor deny. But that this very thing now comes forth from darkness into light, learned men will perhaps rejoice, among whom it will now be certain and unshakable, the testimony of Suidas regarding Pisides, saying that our author wrote, among other things, a *catologaden encomion* into the martyr Anastasius, and not into the Great Athanasius, which Alexandrus Politus had already seen before others in the *Roman Martyrology*, illustr. p. 367, saying: Suidas lists *an encomium into the martyr Anastasius* among the writings of George Pisides; about which reading Kusterus had no reason to inquire, because some scholiast or other had placed *into the Great Athanasius* there. George Pisides further wrote *into The Emperor Heraclius and into the War against the Persians*. Whence it is more likely that Pisides also wrote an encomium on St. Anastasius, a most brave and most celebrated martyr. ...collected both from published and unpublished books, as can be seen at the end: for it is of no use here to repeat those things which have been exposed and treated more fully elsewhere. These, therefore, are the undoubted works of Pisides, which up to this day it has fallen to our lot to find and, having found, to publish. But we conjecture that he wrote others among them: for since many iambics occur among the fragments which are not found in the reviewed minor works, it is manifest that they pertain to some lost booklet. And Pisides himself seems to confirm this by his own testimony: for he says, *acreas. 3, 581, De exped.*: "Howbeit, D ...
accustomed to cross your sea in a small, short-running boat, I have erred, having not yet navigated it all." If he was accustomed to rush into [the subject of] Heraclius with a "small boat"—that is, with short poems about him—in truth he had already published others before he circulated these public readings; but no work of his exists that preceded the readings themselves. Therefore, if he wrote anything, it has been lost. Indeed, in the *Avarica* (v. 307), he promises that in times of peace he would speak more about the deeds of Heraclius; but the poems published after peace was ratified with the Persians are the *Hexaemeron* and the poem *On Severus*, in which he touches but little on Heraclius. A Nor would you say that Pisides has fully redeemed his pledge in the *Heracliad*: for although in that poem he seems to have wished to encompass all the emperor’s deeds, he himself felt and confessed—saying at the end of *Acroas.* 1, 238—that he was pressed and pushed by the abundance of his material, and was only sampling a few things from the many, until the emperor himself returned to the city and granted him more ample opportunity to speak. As our opinion holds, therefore, besides the works of Pisides that are now brought to light, he wrote some other booklet in iambic meter in which the deeds performed by Heraclius in the East were perhaps handled more accurately: our opinion in this matter seems to be confirmed also by the authority of Michael Psellus, as will be said below when we treat of Pisides’ style.
Now, however, we must see whether he wrote yet other things; for Possevinus indeed says in his *Catalogus mss. Graecorum*, at the end of volume III of his *Apparatus*, that a codex is preserved in the Vallicellian Library in which is contained a History of the Deeds of the Emperors of Constantinople by Pisides. But Johannes Georgius Herwart von Hohenburg in his *Capita de re chronologica*, Usserius, and others have not hesitated to attribute to our Georgius that most famous chronicle which was first published under the title of *Fastorum Siculorum* and later by that of the *Chronicon Alexandrinum* and *Paschale*. But as regards the Vallicellian Library, which thanks to the kindness of the Fathers of the Oratory I have often been permitted to visit and examine in its entirety, I clearly agree with Leo Allatius, who refutes Possevinus’s authority thus: "Although I have anxiously sought the book, B and have often leafed through the index and the most important part of the books, yet to this day no such work has appeared." And oh, would that it did—though I do not believe it! I think the error arose thence: for whoever compiled the index of the Greek books, when he found in Codex B. 112—a book quite ancient and of excellent quality, though small in bulk—a history of the emperors of Constantinople, which was nevertheless *acephalous* (headless) through the loss of many pages, and which was followed by the work *On the Hexaemeron* of Georgius Pisides, and (as was proper) had not noticed that the first history regarding the emperors was the *Synopsis* of Constantine Manasses, he assigned it—all too carelessly—to Georgius Pisides, the author of the following work, and provided a screen for those anxious about these matters.
But as for Herwart’s contention that he proved from Suidas that the author of the *Paschal Chronicle* was Pisides, who, as he himself says, flourished in the age of Heraclius and composed his deeds and the Persian wars in prose—how ridiculous this is [p. XXII] appears from what has been said above concerning the testimony of Suidas. For Herwart distorts those very words of Suidas, "‘Hexaemeron in iambics of three thousand lines; on the emperor Heraclius, and on the war against the Persians’," to signify this *Chronicle*, in an empty effort, as if Pisides had pursued the *Annals* of Heraclius from the foundation of the world up to Heraclius and the Persian war in one single work. For he interprets the *eis* in such a way that it means not "on" Heraclius, but "up to" Heraclius, with the punctuation before *eis* entirely removed. C But that this fiction of Herwart is vain has been demonstrated by Matthäus Rader in his *Preface* to this very *Chronicle*, which he entitled and edited as the *Alexandrinum*, quite clearly evincing from Suidas himself that the *Hexaemeron* of Pisides is a work distinct from the others.
But Rader himself also hallucinated when speaking of Pisides' writings: for first, from manuscript codex A of the Augustan Library, in which one reads, "The *Prooemium* to the *Hexaemeron* in iambic lines by Georgius, deacon of the Holy Church," he correctly deduces that this work is *emmetron* and composed in verse; but then he wrongly decides that the 1,880 verses of the same work, which he affirms he had in hand, are nothing other than a *prooemium* to the whole argument—which Vossius also, in *De hist. Graec.*, vol. IV, page 143, moved by Rader’s authority, imprudently asserted. For who does not understand that in the Augustan codex the word *prooimion* means exactly the same as *arche tou Hexaemerou*, that is, the "beginning of the Hexaemeron," or "the Hexaemeron begins"? But who would believe that to a work of three thousand verses, as Suidas pleases, a prooemium of 1,880 verses is affixed? But it is clear to the reader that the *Hexaemeron* *prooemium* consists only of the first fifty iambs, after which the poem begins immediately with the verse, *pege men oun pephuke tou logou mia*. Rader erred a second time in saying that Pisides wrote a *History of Heraclius* in prose (*katalogaden*), and in exhibiting Suidas as a witness to this fact, which has been demonstrated elsewhere to be false. For what Suidas says Pisides wrote about Heraclius, we have seen is contained in iambics, nor does the lexicographer mention any other history to which the *Paschal Chronicle* could refer. D Therefore both Herwart and Rader are mistaken in explaining the text of Suidas; but Herwart more basely, who boasts in his *Capita Chron.* that he discovered the author of the same *Paschal Chronicle* to be Pisides, and did not perceive how inept it is to affirm this when Suidas says Pisides used iambic meter, and the *Paschal Chronicle* is written in prose. But Rader, on the contrary, correctly contends that this *Chronicle* cannot in any way be attributed to Pisides from Suidas, but he wrongly concedes that Pisides himself is the author of some *Heraclian History*. Nay, he does not even dare to deny entirely that Pisides wrote a Chronicle: for he testifies that he saw another anonymous chronicle ms. in the library of the Annus Augustanus college, which in the inscription is said to be culled from Pisides and Cyril, and immediately in...
into it the discourse returns. We, however, believe that Pisides never wrote any Chronicle: for even if we were willing to concede to Raderus that there exists a codex in the Annus college with the title "Chronicle culled from Pisides and Cyril," who would have such faith in the title as to acquiesce to it, rather than doubt that those names were applied to the book by the whim of a copyist, since neither is it known who this Cyril was, nor is it known from any other source what this Chronicle attributed to Pisides might be? But elsewhere A there will also be talk about this fictitious Chronicle. We confidently assert that Pisides contributed nothing of his own to the Paschal Chronicle: for although (to speak with Du Fresne, who adorned a new edition of this chronicle, Pref. p. 8) it can scarcely be denied that a continuator of that work lived under Heraclius, both because the title of the book in the Vatican codex and in the codices of the library of the Catholic King indicates that it ends in the 20th year of Heraclius, or certainly during his times, and because the accounts told about the same Augustus and his deeds, and finally the lengthier epistles transcribed to the king of the Persians or to local rulers, etc., strongly suggest this; yet it does not follow from this that George Pisides, because he lived under the same Emperor Heraclius, must be considered the author of the Chronicle. There are two things, however, that move us to assent freely to Du Fresne: first, that in those things which are recounted at length in the Chronicle concerning Heraclius, there does not occur even one word used by Pisides when dealing with the same matters, as will be manifest to anyone comparing the Chronicle's narration of the Abaric war (p. 392) with that of Pisides; besides the fact that the style of the Chronicle is so rude and unpolished that, as far as it is permitted to compare a historian with a poet, it in no way seems to befit Pisides. Moreover, B if the Paschal Chronicle were the work of our George, it is fair to believe that he would not have merely extended it to the 20th year of Heraclius, and passed over the Persian affairs so dryly after that long and minute digression about the Abars, but would have included more entirely about the deeds of Heraclius against Chosroes, and would have touched upon other things which happened after the Persian war, which were clearly worthy of memory; since it is evident from the poem *On Severus* how much importance the same Pisides deemed those things to have which the Emperor did for settling ecclesiastical disputes after peace was established with Siroes, king of the Persians. Now, indeed, that Pisides was not a chronicler, I think anyone will easily persuade themselves, but that he was an iambographer, no sane person will deny. Why, then, shall we respond to Quintus Septimius Florens Christianus, who for that reason attributes to him the astronomical poem *On the Sphere*, which Fridericus Morellius had previously edited at Paris in the year 1564 under the name of Empedocles or Demetrius Triclinius? For when he, a man who was altogether most learned, had decided in the year 1687 to bring to light a version of the same poem, he interposed this judgment concerning it: "I have never been able to bring my mind to believe that these are the verses of Empedocles, and those who do believe it are certainly very *taxu-peitheis* (easily persuaded), and rely, as it seems to me, on no probable argument." Those who attribute it to Demetrius Triclinius are C very far from those times; but yet, by conjecture, they reach more closely the mark of truth. For although this material is ancient, the form is of more recent times, and it deserved nonetheless to obtain an ancient status; truly this poetry does not differ long from Pisides either in style or age, which judgment I make after others and those more learned, etc." I, for my part, do not believe Pisides is the author, and I plainly and willingly assent to Fabricius, who, in *Bibl. Graec.* Vol. II, p. 477, offered this same little book *On the Sphere*, now rarely encountered, to be read when it was printed again with the notes of a learned interpreter, not unadvisedly, but rather judged that it should be adjudicated to anyone other than Pisides, because the verses 75 et seqq. do not in the least breathe his Christianism and religion: "Τοιᾷδε τάξει σχηματίζοντ' ἀστέρες, θεῶν βροτοῖσι τὴν χάριν δωρουμένων. Εἴτ' οὖν ἀμήτωρ Πολλὰς ὥρισε βροτοῖς, εἴθ' ἥλιος τηλεπὸν ἀστέρων θέσιν, θεῶν τὸ μηχάνημα." For how, D [p. XXV] could it happen that Pisides, who in his *Hexaemeron* turned everything to piety and true religion even too zealously against the Greeks, would, if he were dealing with the sphere and the stars, say that their order and course were established by the fabulous deities of the nations? Truly, this one difficulty seemed to me of such great moment that I decided it was superfluous to examine the work itself more attentively and compare the style with his style. It remains at last that I should also mention this, that not even the *Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul*, which Le Long in *Bibl. Sacr.* Vol. II, p. 907, reports from Frisius and Possevinus to exist in Greek in the Vienna library under the name of Piscidius or the Greek Pisidius, should be attributed to George Pisides; for you will prove by neither authorities nor conjectures that he wrote such things. But the trustworthiness of Frisius and Possevinus in this matter also seems to be capable of being denied, since Lambecius and Reimannus, who compiled the catalogs of the Vienna library much more accurately, make no mention of this Piscidius or Pisidius writing on Paul. Therefore, since it is now clear what works have been falsely attributed to Pisides, it will not be beside the point to say something now about the codices in which we have either seen or read his genuine writings. In the Vatican library there are five such codices, the first of which is signed number 121; in it, besides the works of Cleomedes, Dionysius Periegetes, Theodore Prodromus, and others, are *Γεωργίου διακόνου καὶ ῥεφερενδαρίου τοῦ Πισίδου στίχοι εἰς τὴν Ἑξαήμερον*. The codex is very small, but written in elegant letters: the iambic verses are arranged on individual pages in four columns, not in such a way, however, that the whole first column is to be read before one proceeds to the second, but rather one must begin from the first lines of each column of every page, and then come to the second, third, and fourth, and continue in that order to the end of the page. Moreover, it teems with errors, and many verses are missing in it, [and] many are transposed out of order.
The second Vatican codex is 166, not inelegantly written but very faultily, with corrections by a more recent hand added in the margin. The title is: A Τοῦ σοφωτάτου καὶ λογιωτάτου καὶ ῥεφερενδαρίου τῆς Μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας, κυρίου τοῦ Πισίδου, στίχοι ἰαμβικοὶ πρὸς τὸν πατριάρχην Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Σέργιον, that is, *On the Hexaemeron, dedicated to Sergius*. From this codex we have supplied those ten iambics at the beginning of verse 22, which are in praise of the same Sergius; it ends at verse 1627: Οὕτως ἕκαστα συμφερόντως ἡ χάρις, but for χάρις it has κτίσις. The third Vatican codex is 867, in which only 419 iambics from the Hexaemeron are read, which are about the properties of animals: for it begins at verse 938: Τίς ταῦρον ἐκράτυνεν, and ends at verse 1357: Πρὸς ἥνπερ εἶχεν οὐσίαν ἀναστρέφει. The whole is written negligently and by a barbaric hand, so that you would not doubt that it emanated from a Greek of a later age. The title is: Γεωργίου τοῦ σοφωτάτου καὶ διακόνου τοῦ τῆς Μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας στίχοι. At the end is read τέλος τῶν στίχων. Meanwhile, which is astonishing, the iambics are not [written] in verse form, but in the manner of prose. The fourth Vatican codex is 1126, of parchment, of the size we call 16mo, neatly and elegantly written and, as it seems, by a skilled calligrapher around the 13th century. This is the codex from which the short works of Pisides sent by Holstenius to Maltret, which Allatius did not see, were copied; from which B the transcript for the Corsini library was formed, and which we finally used in procuring this edition. For in it are contained all the poems of Pisides under this title and order: Στίχοι Γεωργίου διακόνου καὶ σκευοφύλακος τῆς Μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Πισίδου εἰς τὴν Ἐξαήμερον. *On the Hexaemeron*. Epigrams, Heraclias, *On the Vanity of Life*, *Against Severus*, *On the Expedition of Heraclius*, *On the Avaric War*, *On Anastasius*. There follow anonymous iambics on St. Mary of Egypt, and then very many poems of Philas. You would not infer from this that either the Hexaemeron or the Poem on the Vanity of Life is mutilated: for all the verses throughout follow one another joined in their order; no erasure appears in the middle, nor at the end—which is usually applied when something is missing—but rather λείπει τἆλλα is read, as is in Morellius. In the margin are titles in red ink indicating the heads of matters, such as the same Morellius exhibited in his Paris edition. The codex, as it seems, passed from the house of the Colonna to the Vatican library: for it has in the beginning these words: *This volume is mine, Nicolaus Bartholomaeus de Columnis*. The fifth Vatican codex is 1281, of bombic paper, presenting outside and inside the crest of the Carafa house: on the first page is read: *The office of librarian, [given] by the testament of Anthony Card. Carafa*; there follows this title: Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις ἡμῶν Κυρίλλου πατριάρχου Ἀλεξανδρείας περὶ ζώων ἰδιότητος καὶ φυτῶν διὰ στίχων ἰαμβικῶν, πρὸς τὸν τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως πατριάρχην κύριον Σέργιον. But by a more recent hand, which seems to be Allatius', it is correctly noted in the same place: Γεωργίου τοῦ Πισίδου. After verse 80: Σιγῶσι Πρόκλοι, is read: Ἀρχὴ σὺν Θεῷ τοῦ C Ὡς ἐμεγαλύνθη τὰ ἔργα σου, Κύριε· πάντα ἐν σοφίᾳ ἐποίησας, from which words, if the authority of this codex were so great, these two things would be held as certain, both that it is the beginning of the Hexaemeron, and whom Pisides chose as his leader in writing it. Truly, here clearly is that codex whose epigraph deceived Hieronymus Brunellus, who published the Hexaemeron of Pisides at Rome in the year 1590 under the name of Cyril, as was said above: for everything responds to a hair, both the title and the number of iambics, which are 1864. Otherwise, it is wholly corrupt and utterly uncorrected, although not inelegantly written at the beginning of the 15th century. In the margin at verse 474 there is an inscription of this kind: Περὶ τῆς ἱερᾶς νόσου, *On the Sacred Disease*, which I have not found in any other codex. But Morellius also applied the same marginal gloss, the force of which I do not fully grasp, nor had the editor of the *Bibliotheca Patrum* of Paris (1589) grasped it before, for he says: *I do not understand the inscription "On the sacred disease"; I would prefer "On the struggles and rewards of the martyrs of Christ".* These five Vatican codices, since it was permitted, I have not regretted comparing for a long time now and collecting variant readings from here and there; for there was hope that we would bring back the richest fruit of our diligence; but I tired of the exhausted labor at last, when I understood that they were all written so ignorantly and carelessly that you could derive no utility from reading them, if you except the cited codex 1126, which alone it would have sufficed to examine and weigh more accurately. But we also wished to compare another codex of the Vallicelliana library, signed B 115, which Fulvius Ursinus gave as a gift to Achilles Statius, as I noticed noted in the same; lest while it was at hand, we might seem to have failed in our duty by either neglecting or omitting it. The codex is of parchment, in which the iambics of Pisides immediately come, D beautifully arranged in two columns and visible in a neat character, but [p. XXVII] defiled by many errors and arranged in a disturbed order; and indeed not a few are missing: for the Hexaemeron is contained therein in 1651 verses. The title is: Γεωργίου τοῦ Πισίδου εἰς πατριάρχην Σέργιον περὶ τῆς Ἐξαημέρου. But when, a few years ago, I had come to Florence to revisit my ancestral home, I was pleased by my leisure to see and handle codex 10, pluteus 5, of the Medicean-Laurentian library, although it is not commendable for its age nor for any beauty of writing, in which are contained Γεωργίου διακόνου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως τοῦ Πισίδου στίχοι ἴαμβοι, namely on the Hexaemeron, which are only 1427 in number: for the writer omitted many verses, and especially at the end, the last of which occurs, which for us is 1823: ἔτοιμος οἶνος. But that had been observed before by the most diligent editor of the catalog of that same library, p. 25, subjoining these things: *In the codex are added these five faulty verses, which are missing in the edition of Lectius: Δόξα δὲ πάντων τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Δεσπότῃ τῷ ζῶντι καὶ μένοντι εἰς ἀεὶ πρέπει. Ἀμὴν, ἀμὴν γένοιτο τῷ ἐν τοῖς πᾶσι χρόνοις τε καὶ γ' ἔτεσι τοῖς ἀμετρήτοις, εἴτε δὲ τοῖς ἀναξίοις ἡμῖν ἐν πᾶσι καιροῖς.* But it is not so, which however it was easy to understand, that those insipid little verses are not of Pisides, but of the
A late writer, who, when he had come to the end of his writing, in the manner of scribes, let these things slip out of his own head. So far from these trifles being missing in the editions of the Hexaemeron, they should rather, if they had perchance crept in there, be expunged.
I come now to the library of the Royal Athenaeum of Turin, in which, as is gathered from its catalogue, there are two manuscripts containing the works of Pisides, namely 304 and 360. When I had read this, I immediately asked by letter the learned Father Beccaria, a most celebrated professor at the same Athenaeum and a very dear friend from the time when we were both living in Palermo, to communicate to me, by whatever reason and method he could, more extensive knowledge of these codices than what was in the catalogue. He, however, handed over this task, than which nothing more desirable could have happened to me, to another custodian of the library, Francesco Berta, a most learned and kind man, who of his own accord and will, led by the hope of no base reward, undertook the unpleasant burden, collated one of the two manuscripts, and liberally sent his observations on both to me. But, as he himself confesses, each codex was written defectively in the fifteenth century, and this is abundantly clear from the variants extracted from them. The title of codex 504 is here: *Georgii diaconi et chartophylacis sanctissimae Dei Ecclesiae C. P. Pisidensis, prooemium in Hexaemeron iambis conscriptum* (of George, deacon and chartophylax of the most holy Great Church of God at Constantinople, known as Pisides, a proemium written in iambics on the Hexaemeron); which title is read in the Catalogue, p. 393, expressed in Latin only as: *Georgii diaconi et chartophylacis sanctissimae Dei Ecclesiae C. P. Pisidensis, carmen in Hexaemeron* (George, deacon and chartophylax of the most holy Church of God of C.P., Pisides, a poem on the Hexaemeron). But you would render it better and more literally: George, etc., of the most holy and Great Church of God, by the name of Pisides, a proemium written in iambics on the Hexaemeron. This is the codex whose various readings are in my possession by the kindness of the most laudable Francesco Berta, from which, however, it was not possible for us to gain any help either to purify or to enrich the text of Pisides: for all things therein are interpolated and barbarously written. But there also occur in it those ten senarii in praise of Sergius, which we said above were excluded from Cod. Vat. 166 and which we inserted into the Hexaemeron after verse 21. Furthermore, in this Turin codex [p. XXVIII], B besides those ten, these other two verses are added: *Ἡ προγραφὴ δὲ τῶν λαλούντων δραμάτων ἔρως προσευχῆς καὶ θεάτρωτος λόγος*, which we have not received into the text because they seemed to us to be too vapid and by no means to fit Pisides. But let him who wishes receive them, provided that for *θεάτρωτος*, which is a foul and barbarous word, he reads *θεοπρεπής λόγος*.
However, I shall produce the title of the other codex, 360—the characters of which the same friend Berta warned me are so faded that they can barely be read—from the Catalogue, in which, p. 485, these things are held: *Georgii diaconi Magnae ecclesiae et referendarii, cognomine Pisidae, iambici versus politici in Hexaemeron magni Basilii, quorum initium ὦ παντός* (of George, deacon of the Great Church and referendary, by the name of Pisides, iambic political verses on the Hexaemeron of the great Basil, whose beginning is "of all"). But in this title, both the writer of the codex, who appended "political verses" to Pisides, and the author of the catalogue, who calls them "iambic political [verses]," erred; for, as we shall note below, Pisides indeed wrote in iambics, and entirely elegantly, not in political verses; and you could in no way call iambic verses political, since there is the greatest difference between iambics themselves and political verses. But as for what is read there next, that Pisides wrote his iambics on the Hexaemeron of Basil, we show on what thin foundation that rests in the *Monitum* to the poem *De opificio mundi* itself. But in this codex, besides the Hexaemeron, there are also contained: first, *τοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν μάταιον βίον καὶ καθ᾽ ὑπερηφάνων* (of the same, on the vanity of life and against the proud), iambics whose beginning is: *Ἄνοιξον ἡμῶν τοῦ λογισμοῦ τὰς κόρας* (Open the eyes of our understanding); then truly, *στίχοι τοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν ἀνάστασιν* (verses of the same on the holy resurrection of Christ our God), whose beginning is: *Λευχειμονοῦσα νῦν προῆλθεν ἡ κτίσις· τὸ γὰρ σκοτεινὸν ἐκδιδάσκεται χρέος* (Clothed in white, the creation has now gone forth; for the darkness is being instructed in its debt).
These are the codices preserved in the libraries of Italy in which the works of Pisides are contained; and there are no other *Georgii τῆς Μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας στίχοι* (verses of George of the Great Church), which Conrad Gesner says in his *Bibliotheca* exist somewhere in Italy; and therefore he is not undeservedly mocked by Allatius for having written thus: *Γεωργίου πόνημα τοῦ καὶ Πισίδου* (The work of George, also [called] Pisides). A trimeter iambic inscription of a book—which I do not know in what library of Italy lies hidden—containing various small works: about summer, about the sea, to those who do not fear the laws, about growth, about our senses; a physiology of plants, birds, winged creatures, swimming creatures, wild beasts, reptiles, and herbs; of the genera of animals; about the locust, about the swallow, about the pomegranate; all of which constitute a part of the Hexaemeron. "But behold," Allatius adds, "how this man breaks a single and continuous treatise into many." Might not a poem also, by this reasoning, sometimes be a single treatise and small work? C But there are indeed far more codices of the works of Pisides that exist in libraries outside Italy: for in the Royal [Library] of Paris alone, than which there is clearly none richer after the Vatican, there are five codices, as is evident from the catalogue, namely 854, 1277, 1302, 2831, 2871, containing iambic poems on the Hexaemeron, or *De opificio mundi*, under the explicit name of Pisides. But in the same place there exist five other codices, that is to say 2745, 2746, 2869, 2870, 2893, in which the same work is under the false name of Cyril of Alexandria. In codex 1650, however, are read the iambics of Pisides *De vita humana*, the *ἀρχοτέλειαν* (the beginning and end) of which the learned M. Capperonier, custodian [p. XXIX] of the Royal Library, sent to us upon request, with great kindness, which we here willingly append, both because other things are read there differently than in the published versions, and because it is confirmed that nothing is missing at the end of this poem, as we were saying above: *Τοῦ σοφωτάτου Γεωργίου τοῦ Πισίδου εἰς τὸν ἀνθρώπινον βίον καὶ κατὰ ὑπερηφάνων ἔμμετρα ιαμβικά. Τὸ πρόγραμμα πρὸς Χριστόν. Ἀνοῖξον ἡμῶν τοῦ λογισμοῦ τὰς πτύχας, ὁ τοῦ ὄνου πρὶν ἐξανοίξας τὸ*
τὸ στόμα· Εἰ καὶ λελέχθαι τοῖς θεόπταις πάντῃ τῇ τοῦ καθ᾽ ἡμῶν εὐδιαγνώστου βίου. Ὅμως ἐκείνοις χρώμενος διδασκάλοις ἐμαυτὸν, ὡς ἔνεστιν, ἐμμέτρως γράφων δι᾽ ἧς πέπομφα τῶν παθῶν ἀμετρίαν γραφεὺς ἐμαυτοῦ καὶ κατηγορουμένων. Ἀρχὴ τῶν ἐμμέτρων· Τὴν τοῦ βίου ῥέουσαν εἰκόνα γράφων. Τέλος· Ὄχημα λαμπρὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ πεπηγμένον, δρόμον χρονικὸν ἐξ Ἀδὰμ συλλαμβάνον.
But in the same codex 1650, under the name of Pisides, there come: no. 77, heroic verses on the same subject, namely, on the vanity of life; no. 78, iambics on the temple which is in Blachernae; and no. 79, epigrams on David, on the Theologian, on the Horologion, and on the synopsis of laws. The aforementioned Capperonnier warned me—and I follow his authority quite willingly—that all these are falsely ascribed to Pisides. However, since other very learned men have judged the iambics on the Blachernae church to be by George, I have not hesitated to include them among the fragments, along with other poems on the Mother of God and Saint Thomas and others, which the same Capperonnier shared with us, transcribed from codex 2831 as genuine works of Pisides.
I shall not speak of the homily on the blessed Virgin and on the life-giving and saving Passion, which in codex 1207 is attributed to George Pisides, bishop of Nicomedia; for enough has been said about this confusion of the names of George Pisides and George of Nicomedia. Now, however, shifting our step from the Royal Library of Paris to the Imperial Library in Vienna, we have learned from the catalogs of Lambeck, Nesselius, and Reimmann that three codices are kept there bearing the name of Pisides. The first is the theological codex 209, of which Lambeck treats in Book V, p. 18, and Reimmann, p. 338. In it, at no. 7, comes the Hexaemeron under this title: *Of the Deacon and Referendarius George Pisides on the Hexaemeron*, but it reaches only as far as the passage about the silkworms, the beginning of which is: *Ποῖος δὲ καὶ σκώληκα σηρικόνομος*.
The second codex is the one assigned to the medical class, marked at no. 48; see Lambeck, Book VI, p. 162, and Reimmann, p. 495. The title is: *Τοῦ σοφωτάτου κυρίου Γεωργίου τοῦ Πισίδου περὶ ζώων* (The poem in iambics on animals of the most wise lord George Pisides, which is the Hexaemeron). But in respect of this title, as Lambeck says, the mention of this work occurs among the medical texts as if it pertained to the history of animals, whereas it would be altogether better to assign it to the theological class. Toward the end of this poem, namely in the region of verse 1856: *Καὶ δέξα*, in the margin of the codex these words are written: *πρὸς Ἡράκλειον λέγει*, and shortly after in the region of verse 1880: *ὁ πατριάρχης*, these things also are read: *πρὸς Σέργιον λέγει*.
The third codex, from which Nesselius (Part IV, p. 83) and Reimmann (Part II, Book II, p. 72) cite this title: *A poem or iambic verses on animals, birds, plants, and herbs, perhaps by George Pisides or Psellus*, is mutilated at the beginning. Having read this, and not knowing clearly whence this doubt about Pisides and Psellus arose, I asked the excellent Nicolaus Forlosia, one of the librarians of the Vienna library—whose most pleasant company I enjoyed while I was in Vienna, and whose death I now mourn along with all good men—by letter to send me a more accurate description of that codex. He kindly wrote back that the codex was neither of the best quality, as Reimmann had chosen to assert, nor neatly written. Instead, it contained poorly put-together works of various authors, the first of which was an iambic poem arranged in two columns, written in a barbarous and almost faded hand, the beginning of which is: *Χλωρὰν δὲ τὴν ἄγρωστιν εἰ φάγει κύων*. But this is verse 961 of the Hexaemeron of Pisides; therefore, Psellus has nothing to do with this.
Indeed, besides these three Viennese codices containing the Hexaemeron of Pisides, two others are mentioned by Lambeck in which fragments of our George occur. For in Book I, p. 208, he says that in codex 188, no. 22, there is an Exposition of the psalm *Bless the Lord, O my soul*, gathered by an anonymous author from Eusebius Pamphili, St. Maximus, etc., and from George Pisides, whose iambics taken from the poem *On the Creation of the World* are cited. And in Book V, p. 106, he says that in codex 241 exist the *Ascetic Eclogues* of John, Patriarch of Antioch, collected from various ecclesiastical writers, among whom are praised Evagrius, *On Vain Glory*, and George Pisides, who wrote on the same subject.
But there remains another codex that must by no means be omitted, which in Nesselius (Part V, p. 174) is 124, and in Reimmann (Part II, Book II, p. 701) is 54. For from it, that which we were unwilling to concede above to Raderus seems to be confirmed: that Pisides also left behind a written Chronicle. The description of this codex was given first by Nesselius, and then word for word from him by Reimmann: *A Greek historical manuscript codex, on paper, written in a recent hand, at one time belonging to the library of the late David Hoeschel, in which is contained the Chronographic Breviary of George Pisides, deacon and chartophylax of the Great Church of Constantinople, and of Cyril the monk, arranged from various histories from the creation of the world up to Emperor Constantine, son of Leo the Wise, with a Latin translation placed on the opposite side.*
But since these things seemed to me not to agree with one another, I asked the lately praised Nicolaus Forlosia to examine that same codex a bit more attentively and at least to send me the title transcribed from it. He, writing back briefly to all things in *τόδε μοι κρῖνε ξεῖνε*, replied: "The codex is of very recent writing, and perhaps from the year 1573; for at the end of a certain page I read: *Ὑπὸ Ἀνδρέου Λαμαρίνου τοῦ Ἐπιδαυρίου τέλος λαβοῦσα ἀφξʹ* (Finished by Andreas Lamarinus of Epidaurus, 1560)." The title, however, which I believe was affixed to the book by an unskilled and crude scribe, is this: *Of George Pisides, and Cyril. A brief chronography of our father among the saints, Cyril, which he collected from various historians. Iambic verse. Capturing the course of time from Adam. The one* [a]
οὖν Ἀδὰμ μετὰ τὸ ἐκβληθῆναι τοῦ παραδείσου, κ. τ. λ. In the chronicle, there occur no iambics that would identify Pisides. But let yours be the judgment on these matters. These are the words of Forlosia. For my part, I think it is enough to gather from this very title, which you might translate as follows: *Georgii Pisidæ et Cyrilli. Sancti Patris nostri Cyrilli Breviarium chronographicum, quod ex variis historicis collectum est. Versus iambicus. Δρόμον χρονικὸν ἐξ Ἀδὰμ συλλαμβάνον*, i.e., "resuming the course of time from Adam: 'Now when Adam had been cast out of Paradise,' etc." Now, as is immediately apparent, nothing is more ridiculous than this title, from which you can hardly understand what the writer intended to premise. But, in my opinion, two titles are here incorrectly combined into one. The first words, *Georgii Pisidæ et Cyrilli*, constitute the first title, which the writer attached to the codex, perhaps because he wished to transcribe in that book certain things selected from Cyril and Pisides; unless you prefer to say that he made this title for the book immediately, because he first thought of writing about the *Hexaemeron* of Pisides; but when, from the codices he had at hand, he saw it attributed now to Georgius, now to Cyril, he judged that both names could be rightly set down there. The words that follow, *S. Patris Cyrilli Breviarium*, etc., refer to the second title, in which, since there is no further mention of Pisides, it becomes clear that this Chronicle does not belong to that Pisides at all, whom the same writer does not mention in that part of the work. Nor is that rough little verse which follows thereafter by Pisides, but by the copyist, who warned at the front of the book that the Chronicle begins from Adam: for it begins immediately: "Now when Adam had been cast out of Paradise," etc., which words, nevertheless, demonstrate that something is missing from the beginning of the Chronicle. For ought there not to have been a discourse beforehand on the creation of Adam? As regards St. Cyril, to whom the Chronicle is ascribed, I have nothing else to say, except that this name was rashly fixed there by the writer: for, as it seems, this Chronicle which is called St. Cyril's is not different from that which is so frequently cited by Ducange in his *Dissertatio de Hebdomo*, at the end of his notes on Zonaras, as an anonymous MS Chronicle from Adam to Leo the Wise. But I care nothing for Cyril here, and being concerned only about Pisides, I assert, first, that no authority should be given to the title of this codex, and secondly, although one might be inclined to trust it, that it can in no way be deduced from it that Pisides is the author of that Chronicle, which is truly inscribed only to Cyril. These things, however, had to be explained by me at greater length, so that I might meet Rader, whom we saw above, in the epigraph of the codex once existing in the Annaean College at Augsburg, was not opposed to ascribing the Chronicle to Pisides; since, if I am not mistaken, the codex which Rader saw at Augsburg is the same one which we recently argued to be of open falsity in its title, having been translated, as it seems, into the Vienna library from the library of David Hoeschelius, a citizen of Augsburg, to whom it previously belonged, as Nessel and Reinumann bear witness. But that these things may be known even more clearly, I shall not omit what the most learned Montfaucon noted in the catalogue of the Coislinian library concerning codex 305, in which is contained a Chronicle of a certain Georgius the Monk, who calls himself Hamartolus, that is, the sinner: for it appears sufficiently from there that the Coislinian Chronicle is exactly the same as the Augsburg and Vienna ones. The title of the Coislinian is: *Χρονικὸν σύντομον ἐκ διαφόρων χρονογράφων συλλεγὲν καὶ συντεθὲν ὑπὸ Γεωργίου ἁμαρτωλοῦ μοναχοῦ. Πρόλογος χρονικῆς ἱστορίας. Inc.: Πολλοὶ τῶν ἔξω φιλολόγων καὶ λογογράφων.* Although this inscription does not seem to agree exactly with the inscription of the Vienna codex, nevertheless, it does not in the least move us from our opinion [p. XXXII]: for on the testimony of Montfaucon himself, the codex was restored in the beginning and in other places by a more recent hand, and indeed a prologue was added there which is lacking in other codices, so that you might easily conjecture that the writers of this Chronicle each made a title according to his own inclination. But you will recognize that the matter is clearer from the beginning of the Chronicle itself, which we learn from Montfaucon to be of this sort: *Βίβλος γενέσεως ἀνθρώπων ᾗ ἡμέρᾳ ἔπλασεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν Ἀδάμ κατ' εἰκόνα καὶ ὁμοίωσιν αὐτοῦ. Ὁ δὲ Ἀδάμ ἐγέννησεν υἱοὺς τρεῖς καὶ θυγατέρας δύο, τὸν Καῖν, καὶ τὸν Ἀβέλ, καὶ τὸν Σήθ, καὶ τὴν Ἀζούραν, καὶ τὴν Ἀσουά.* You have, therefore, in this Coislinian chronicle the fable about the two daughters of Adam, which Rader said he read in the Augsburg chronicle, as was observed above, confirmed by the testimony and name of Pisides. In truth, the name of Pisides does not appear here. And so, either Rader hallucinated while he was reading it, or through the ignorance of the writer this very name of Pisides crept in there. Furthermore, Montfaucon warns that the Chronicle is full of fables and ridiculous little narratives, and is entirely woven from long shreds of the Fathers, among whom St. Cyril is cited, which perhaps gave the writer of the Augsburg and Vienna codex the opportunity to inscribe the Chronicle to Cyril. But this will become certain at some point, if anyone undertakes to compare these two Chronicles among themselves, and does not omit a third, which Allatius, p. 515, and Cave, p. 583, said is found in MS in the Scoriacensian library under this title: *Γεωργίου χαρτοφύλακος τῆς Μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας Χρονικόν*, which, as it seems, is the very same Chronicle gathered and compiled here and there by a certain Georgius. But it will be of great help, if anyone believes it to be a matter of such importance, more diligently to weigh those things which Allatius argued at length while dealing with the Georgius monks, p. 523: for when he had seen so many Chronicles commonly remembered under the name of Georgius, he attempted to untie the knot, and to distinguish Chronicle from Chronicle, Georgius from Georgius, and, if possible, to fish the truth out of the well; a task which, however, did not seem to us to have turned out very happily for him. But who would have better disentangled a most complicated matter without the review and consideration of all the codices? Notwithstanding, it is certain that Allatius never vindicated any of such many Chronicles for Georgius Pisides. As for me, when I had understood that Allatius himself had translated the Chronicle of Georgius Hamartolus from the Greek language
A into Latin—a work which, however, never saw the light of day—I gave careful consideration to the Vatican codices 153 and 154, from which he prepared his version, and from them I openly discovered that the Chronicle of Hamartolus differs not at all, or very little, from the Chronicles mentioned above, which in codices of other libraries are attributed to other Georgii, and that it is entirely the same as the Coislinian manuscript praised by Montfaucon. For, besides the prologue, *Πολλοὶ μὲν τῶν ἔξω φιλολόγων* [Many of the external philologists], which Allatius transcribed in full on p. 331, the Vatican codices also bear the same title and the same account concerning the two daughters of Adam in these words: *Χρονικὸν σύντομον ἐκ διαφόρων χρονογράφων καὶ ἐξηγητῶν συλλεγὲν καὶ συντεθὲν ὑπὸ Γεωργίου ἁμαρτωλοῦ μοναχοῦ. Βίβλος γενέσεως ἀνθρώπων, ᾗ ἡμέρᾳ ἔπλαττεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ᾿Αδάμ κατ' εἰκόνα καὶ ὁμοίωσιν αὐτοῦ. Ὁ δὲ ᾽Αδάμ ἐγέννησεν υἱοὺς τρεῖς καὶ θυγατέρας δύο, τὸν Καῖν, καὶ τὸν ᾿Αβέλ, καὶ τὸν Σήθ, καὶ τὴν Ἀζύραν, καὶ τὴν ᾿Ασουάμ. Καὶ ὁ μὲν ᾿Αδάμ κατὰ κέλευσιν Θεοῦ ἐπέθηκεν ὀνόματα πᾶσι τοῖς τετραπόδεσ], καὶ πετεινοῖς, καὶ ἀμφιβίοις, καὶ ἑρπετοῖς, καὶ ἰχθύσι, καὶ τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ τέκνοις· τὸ δὲ αὐτοῦ ὄνομα καὶ τῆς γυναικὸς αὐτοῦ ἄγγελος Κυρίου εἶπεν αὐτοῖς. Καὶ ὁ μὲν Καῖν ἔλαβε γυναῖκα τὴν πρώτην ἀδελφὴν αὐτοῦ Ἀζύραν, ὁ δὲ Σὴθ τὴν δευτέραν Ἀσουάμ. Καὶ ὁ μὲν ᾿Αβέλ, κ. τ. λ.* [A brief chronicle collected and composed from various chroniclers and commentators by Georgius Hamartolus the monk. The book of the generation of men, on the day when God fashioned Adam according to his image and likeness. And Adam begat three sons and two daughters, Cain, and Abel, and Seth, and Azura, and Asouam. And Adam, by the command of God, placed names upon all the quadrupeds, and birds, and amphibians, and creeping things, and fishes, and his own children; and his own name and that of his wife the angel of the Lord told to them. And Cain took as wife his first sister Azura, and Seth the second, Asouam. And Abel, etc.] Therefore, either all these Chronicles have one and the same author, Georgius—Hamartolus, if you please—or they were compiled from other Chronicles by some Georgius or other, whom no sane person would hereafter claim to be the Pisidian, as Raderus did. But these matters are perhaps too lengthy, so that you may understand that the Pisidian is not to be numbered among the writers of chronicles by the authority of either codices or authors. Now, finally, no other codices of said Pisidian remain to be reviewed than the one preserved in the Bavarian library, no. 51, as attested by Spitzelius, and the one in the Augustana, plut. 3, n. 75, which is inscribed as follows: *Γεωργίου διακόνου τῆς ἁγίας ἐκκλησίας, τοῦ Πισίδου, προοίμιον τῆς Ἑξαημέρου διὰ ἰάμβων στίχων* [Of Georgius, deacon of the holy church, the Pisidian, a prologue to the Hexaemeron in iambic verses], of which we have also spoken above.
So much for the works and the codices in which the works of the Pisidian are contained: now something must be said about the style of the works themselves. The iambics which Georgius used in writing are, for the most part, well-turned and elegant. For rarely do tribrachs, dactyls, and other mixed feet occur, by which the polish and grace of the iambs might languish; a flaw which Horace long ago objected to in the comic poets of his own time, whose license in composing iambs was such that it produced the greatest disgust for the ears. But all the iambics of the Pisidian flow into the ears with good rhythm and sink into the mind pleasantly. On account of which I bore with less patience what was said above, page 23, (col. 1185), that in the catalogue of the Turin library the iambics of the Pisidian were called "political"—a term which Joannes Matthias Gesnerus, in his book *De eruditione Græcorum qui hodie vivunt* [On the Erudition of the Greeks who live today], rightly and deservedly calls sheer folly, being unpolished and rude, and more worthy of ditch-diggers and goat-herds than of politicians. For truly, the rationale of these poems, in which the number of syllables, not the quantity, is considered, was introduced among the Greeks solely by the barbarism of later centuries, as is witnessed by Allatius in his *Diatriba de Simeonibus*, p. 166, to which Fabricius (*Bibl. Græc.* vol. X, p. 253 and 318) and Cardinal Quirinius (*Diatr. in orthod. vet. Græciæ officia*, p. 47) have subscribed. For he says: "This method of composing poems is not new to that nation, but has been found to be in use for many centuries, perhaps weary of labor, before and while barbarism occupied all things (add also the ignorance of similar matters), as we see in the poems of the patriarch Photius, Psellus, Manasses, Philippus Solitarius, Manuel Philes, and Tzetzes, in which political verses often occur, the art of which seems to consist entirely in this: that they never exceed fifteen syllables, and if any seem to be beyond that, they shorten and consume them by aphaeresis or synalopha, provided that they end in an iamb at the finish: for this reason they are called 'political' or 'demotic,' because they are vulgar, or, as the same Allatius declares, they are common to all citizens and adapted for their use." And so, B it is so far from the case that the iambics of the Pisidian become vile through this squalor and filth that, rather, a certain excessive gaiety resides in them, which can indeed be judged more easily by the ears than demonstrated in words, and which is permitted to no one to preserve when translating the meaning into another language: for the sound and the numbers, in which the entire grace consists, are dissolved by interpretation, and the sentiments themselves, which rely on the sheer configuration and form of the words, are cut to pieces and enervated. But we will not deny that this very excessive zeal for chasing after flowers and witticisms, which, with the gradual creeping in of barbarism and the perishing of the native sparkle of eloquence, was peculiar to the sophists, is to be counted a fault in the Pisidian rather than a virtue: for we know how a later age has sprinkled writings with new and exquisite ornaments in such a way that, while it tempered the discourse with excessive sweetness, it weakened its force and cut the nerves of robust and sound diction. Wherefore, it is no wonder that the iambics of the Pisidian were so much to the taste of the later Greeks that they did not hesitate to prefer them to others: for Gregorius, bishop of Corinth, in the book *Περὶ συντάξεως λόγων* [On the Construction of Speech], which exists in manuscript in the Vatican library, thought the iambic poem of the Pisidian to be such that we ought to seek our example from it before all others, as from the most absolute one: *Ἐπεὶ οὖν τὰ ἰαμβεία λογογραφία τίς ἐστιν εὔρυθμος, ζηλούσθω σοι καὶ ἐνθυμηματικὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς. Ἔχεις ἀρχέτυπον τὸν Πισίδην, νεωτέρους τὸν Καλλικλήν, τὸν Πτωχοπρόδρομον, καὶ εἴ τις τοιοῦτος. Ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς τὸν θεολόγον, τὸν Σοφοκλῆν, ἐκτὸς τῶν ποιητικῶν ἰδιωμάτων αὐτῶν, τὰ εὐφραδέστερα τοῦ Λυκόφρονος· καὶ εἴ τι τοιοῦτον* [Since, therefore, iambic poetry is a certain rhythmic logography, let it be striven for by you, and let it be sententious in its content. You have as an archetype the Pisidian; among the younger ones, Callicles, Ptochoprodromus, and anyone of the same kind. Among the ancients, the Theologian, Sophocles, apart from their poetic idioms, and the more articulate parts of Lycophron; and anything of the same sort]. But how great was the estimation of the Pisidian and his poems among these same Greeks, you may learn far better from Allatius, who, in his *Diatriba de Georgiis*, p. 310, brings forward Psellus as a witness that most people compare the Pisidian to Euripides, and many prefer him to him, not without contention of mind, and even with strife stirred up.
have been somewhat presumptuous. There is nothing in Psellus’s praise that could be more honorific to Pisides. Truly, however, it is not all that easy to find in Pisides everything that Psellus praises; for in which of his books or poems does our George speak so eloquently and in such detail about charioteers and chariot-racing, about yokes, wheels, and hubs? Or what, among his poems, is the description of phalanxes, or the varied tactical arrangement of horsemen, infantry, and archers that is so accurate? Is it anything other than the writings of Pisides that exist today, which Psellus commends, even while documenting a lost book? I confess, for my part, that this seemed highly probable to me at once; but when I weighed Psellus’s words and his manner of speaking more accurately, I finally perceived that the things Pisides had touched upon summarily were being wonderfully decorated and amplified by Psellus. For what he says regarding diseases and remedies is certainly to be referred to verse 1533 and the following verses of the *Hexaemeron*; and what he says regarding the chain, to the first verses of the poem *On Severus*; furthermore, what the same Psellus reports regarding the hours moving themselves into a dance, you have in the *Hexaemeron*, verse 289, and what he says regarding the hours emerging by chariot and returning in a circle, you will find in the same place, verse 338; finally, what is in Psellus regarding phalanxes and military forces, you could conveniently attribute to the *Acroases* on the expedition of Heraclius against the Persians, in which similar things appear throughout. But indeed, although I do not disagree in the least with Psellus, and although I consider Pisides to be entirely deserving of his praise, I would still never prefer him to Euripides or any other of the ancient Greek iambographers. For I will say what is true: although in very many places the poem of Pisides shines forth such that you do not find the grace and charm of the ancient poets wanting, often it also grows so cold that you not only feel the author must have been dozing while writing, but you are also as indignant as possible. As for the rest, how much he was able to rise and lift himself up with the sublimity of his verse is shown especially in his *Hexaemeron*, in which all things are sprinkled with the flowers of his thoughts and a certain salt of urbanity. In all his works, however, it will be possible to contemplate the adumbrated image of a pious writer, his most sweet character, and the extraordinary probity with which, while his verse falls rhythmically and flows gently, he impresses and commends itself to the ears of his readers.
These are the things I had to say about George Pisides, a poet of no small name among the later Greeks, in whom, while you find many things that you admire not unwillingly, there is nothing, I think, that should be regarded more than his constancy and sincere faith in defending the dogmas of the Christian religion. For when he had fallen into the times in which Patriarch Sergius moved every machine to draw the entire East away from Monophysitism toward Monothelitism through wily counsel and evil schemes, though he himself greatly admired and cherished Sergius and his piety and doctrine, he nonetheless in no way allowed himself to be deceived, and he kept his faith pure and whole; a fact which is clearly evident from all these little books, and especially from the poem *On Severus*.
Mention of Pisides is made among the ancients by Theophanes, Suidas, Cedrenus, Nicephorus Callisti, John Tzetzes, and his brother Isaac Tzetzes; among the more recent writers, meanwhile, besides Morellius, Kusterus, Herwartus, Raderus, Allatius, Maltretus, Fabricius, Cave, and Oudin, whose opinions we have hitherto weighed, there are very many other most celebrated writers who, in passing judgment on the writings of the same Pisides, have been mistaken due to words of Suidas that were poorly accepted and understood. For Baronius, at the year 627-29, and after him Pagius, say that Pisides wrote in prose what is read written in iambic meter. Thus, in the same way, Bellarmine and Labbe, in *De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis*, attribute the history *On the Deeds of Emperor Heraclius* to Pisides, from whom Banduri, in *Antiquit. Constantinop.*, p. 868, does not dissent. But in that error, these men had as their leader Vossius, in *De historicis Græcis*, vol. IV, p. 143; and Possevinus, in *Apparatus sacer*, vol. I, p. 538. However, those who did not err when speaking of Pisides are William Crow, in *Elenchus Scriptorum in S. Scripturam*, p. 149; John Henry Boecler, in *De scriptoribus Græcis et Latinis*, p. 85; Adrien Baillet, in *Jugemens des sçavans*, vol. IV, p. 546; Jacques Lelong, in *Bibliotheca sacra*, vol. II, p. 741; and John James Scheuchzer, in *Physica sacra*, vol. I, at the beginning, either because they knew no other work of his besides the *Hexaemeron*, or because they chose not to interpose their own judgment regarding the others. Isaac Casaubon, in *Animadv. in Athenæum*, p. 823, calls our George a pious and elegant man, an impartial judge, but he proposes an emendation to him which we do not believe should be accepted, as it is less necessary, as is evident from verse 240 of *On the Vanity of Life*. Lorenzo Crasso, in *Istoria de' poeti Greci*, p. 262, merely transcribed Suidas, and he found nothing in him to criticize or amend. In the exactly the same way, Francesco Saverio Quadrio, in *Ragione d'ogni poesia*, vol. II, p. 124, followed Suidas, but he falsely says that an Encomium, which is on Saint Anastasius the Persian, was written by Pisides on Heraclius, which he also confirms, vol. IV, p. 505. Nothing, however, is less accurate than what Dupin, *Bibliothèque des auteurs ecclésiastiques*, 7th century, p. 62, and Moreri, who translated Dupin’s words into his Dictionary, as well as J. Grancolas, *Critique des auteurs ecclésiastiques*, vol. II, p. 64, have said about our George. But by far better than everyone else, D. Remi Ceillier wrote about him in *Histoire des auteurs ecclésiastiques*, vol. XVII, p. 532: for the things that he brings forward and decides concerning the matter are either entirely correct or at least supported by probable conjectures.
IMMANUEL BEKKER'S PREFACE
Pisidian historical works prefixed to the *Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae*. Leipzig, 1836.
The poems of Georgius Pisida, some of which are of use for Byzantine history, were collated with a manuscript book by Mauricius Pinder. Aided greatly by his industry and diligence, I have so purged these iambics—which were both poorly produced and even worse corrupted by the copyists—of their many errors, that having adopted the readings from the codex which were manifestly superior, I did not think the old and obsolete ones worthy of even a single mention. The codex which Pinder used is the Parisinus Regius, supplement 139, membranaceus, of the format we call 12mo, 158 leaves. It contains the poems of Georgius which we provide, the *Hexaemeron*, the work on the vanity of life, the work against Severus, and finally that which he wrote on the Resurrection of Christ; in addition, the work of Prousoch on Saint Mary the Egyptian, and, in the last place, the work on the meters of the verses. Written at Berlin, at the end of April, 1836.
MONITUM QUERCII DE EXPEDITIONE PERSICA
That the state of the commonwealth was most mournful and nearly desperate at the time when, Phocas being extinguished, Heraclius took possession of the kingdom, is confirmed by the unanimous agreement of all writers. Indeed, the citizens, divided among themselves, were inflamed by internal hatreds and were stained with mutual bloodshed. The Avars, received into the neighboring regions and endowed as if with the rights of citizenship, but always savage and cruel in spirit, stirred up new troubles daily; barbarians of the Scythian race, flowing in from everywhere into the Roman provinces, piled up incredible calamities into one; and the Persians, having occupied all of Mesopotamia, Syria, Egypt, Palestine, and Phoenicia, and having been brought as far as Chalcedon, threatened such terrible things to the people of Constantinople that the entire empire, together with its very name, was nearly utterly destroyed. Therefore, in such great calamity and wickedness of the times, the commonwealth desired an emperor who might be mightily distinguished by piety, counsel, and military science. Pisida contends in these three *Acroases*, in which he deals with the first expedition against Chosroes, the second Persian king of this name, that Heraclius was clearly a man of this kind, such as the condition of affairs demanded, and a true hero to be preferred by far to the Homeric heroes and greater even than Alexander himself. I truly confess that I was aroused by the reading of this poem to form a higher opinion in my mind of the virtue of Heraclius, although I reflected within myself that there were perhaps some points which, embellished by the talent of the writer and illustrated with the colors of poetry, might move the mind and soul more than was right. For it cannot be denied that Pisida generally uses a turgid and inflated style, and especially an elevated manner of art, when he praises Heraclius and Sergius, although he often nevertheless professes and impresses upon our ears that he not only never adds anything false to the praises of Heraclius, but rather detracts somewhat from them himself (*Acroas.* 1, 43). But, not to speak of the evils of the Church, would that the end of Heraclius’ reign had been as glorious as its beginning! And as much as the emperor himself was strong and fervent in subduing the Persians, would that he had been equally solicitous in repressing the Mahumedans, as soon as they began to break out into the destruction of the Christian name! But as far as Pisida is concerned, what he reports to us here, he reports as an eyewitness; for he was a companion of Heraclius on this first expedition, as is most clearly evident from various places in these *acroases*. Wherefore, it does not seem that faith should be denied to him in the things which he records to have been done in the first Persian war. Certainly Theophanes, who follows the deeds performed by Heraclius, not only uses Pisida as a witness, but transfers his words and sentiments into his own account with such confidence that he did not hesitate to weave and stitch his entire iambics into his narrative, which is made manifest by our annotations. The war which Pisida describes was conducted near the Persian borders beyond Mount Taurus, in the 12th year of the reign of Heraclius, 622 of Christ, with Heraclius
but after a year, when our Georgius had returned to the city, having followed the emperor, he offered congratulations, as it seems, on the successfully conducted affair in this tripartite little book, which he happily presented to him as a token of the fullness of his respect and truth toward him; for he says in Acroasis 3, 379: *To you I now bring this woven crown from the unwithering meadow of truth.* And that these things, like many others, were said not merely poetically, but pompously, splendidly, and in a panegyrical manner, anyone can easily understand. And, as is clearly my own opinion, whether you look at the subject matter or the form of the work, this little poem could deservedly be inscribed and called a panegyric. Indeed, it had long since been accepted among the Pisidians as a custom that poets, who did not have the strength to compose a long poem, would write short poems, which, adorned with a more modest title, they called panegyrics, songs, and miscellanies (*silvae*). The *Silva* of Statius, the various poems of Claudian, and the panegyric of Corippus serve as proof among the Latins, all of which differ little or nothing from the *Acroases* of Pisides. *Acroasis*, indeed, properly means an "audition" or "attendance," yet this word is very rarely found used in that sense. But rhetoricians, when they promised that they were going to say something great, were said to *make an acroasis*—meaning they were to announce or deliver something worthy to be heard; from which it is clear that *acroases* were the declamations of rhetoricians and illustrious expositions on any subject, which is demonstrated at length by Cresollius in *Theatrum veteris rhetoricae*, bk. II, c. 5. But Pisides clearly employed this title, not because he was boasting of the powers of his own genius in the manner of the rhetoricians, but because custom had long since prevailed that such little poems were called *acroases*, that is, recitations, because they were often recited in a large gathering of people and in the presence of those to whom the praises themselves pertained.
OF GEORGIUS, DEACON AND SCEUOPHYLAX OF THE GREAT CHURCH OF GOD, THE PISIDIAN, ON THE EXPEDITION OF HERACLIUS THE EMPEROR AGAINST THE PERSIANS, THREE ACROASES.
A O you who direct the spiritual hosts on high, O Triad, with a light-bearing Word, Toward a fiery and firm station, Filling the heavens and the ether,
A (For by the Word, igniting their natures, (5) You know how to show [them to be] immaterial matter.)
(For by the Word, igniting their natures (5) — you know how to show them to be immaterial matter — filling the heavens and the ether,)
A inflaming and binding together the whole world, and being present everywhere yet not moving, and nowhere circumscribed, and yet contained in place! (10) If prayers fly upward from the deep, give to the dim organs of our mind the sound of a trumpet and the shield of eloquence. Teach us to move the sword straight to the mark, the tongue, a sharpened weapon against enemies. (15) Guide us where it is permitted to record the miracles of Thy power. For the King, obeying Thy command, has set himself toward the struggles against the impious barbarians, for whom it is law (20) to worship created things above Thee, who created them; for whom it is characteristic to cling to false things and always to add the false to B the true; among whom it is foolishly held, as a certain god—an armed horse worshipped in vain; (25) which, for a proof of a false adoration, is now worshipped and again is whipped. O lamentable collapse of the heart! How do they impiously render to that which is honored by them both honor and punishment? (30) And it has no part in the former, while it is worshipped, but it suffers in the latter, when it is frequently whipped. And water and fire, contrary natures, they introduce as gods, which destroy one another, (35) worshipping the dissolution of opposite things. But, O strategist of wise counsels, receive my words with favor, for they are free from flatteries, having learned from Thee not to speak in hypocrisy. As therefore a true estimator of true things, (40) be present as judge of this strategy.
Be a judge more excellent than the Celtic Rhine, Be a judge: yet grant pardon. For I think you shall convict of nothing as spurious In those things on account of which you suffer injury through us. (45) For the tensions of the thoughts within us Are too weak to relate the varied designs And distributions of your toils, And the psychic boldness throughout all things, Which you have fittingly harmonized with the struggles, (50) Expanding the mind in the straitness of affairs. If they say, not without reason, that the prosperities Raised to the highest point are misguided, Let that which is of the Persians be set henceforth among the evils, And let the difficult things of our own affairs (55) Be turned conversely into prosperity: For the ever-flowing stream of life B Brings turnings and changes, So that the steadfast, preserved everywhere, May be guarded alone by the God of the creatures. (60) Quick words course through all things, Depicting natures with subtlety. But when they attempt the journey toward you, They run with desire and are retarded by fear; And having often depicted you, they again (65) Write, though not writing with exactitude. Homer, whom they call the fountain of words (For he widens the loquacious veins, And gushing forth, he waters and nourishes the thoughts Of the rejuvenating mind, (70) Remaining full though often exhausted), Distributes the self-sisterly and well-nurtured virtues By the twofold meanings of words.
But necessarily so; for time, A having shown 75 bravery and prudence And their common dwelling-place with them, has not reached [it]. But if [the mind] has provided for your image And found the perfect nature, as it ought, Leaving behind many of the mythic tales of words, It added to the psychic formation, 80 which you possess, in full, And showed one quadriform image of virtues joined together through you. For if [it] likens the tongue of Nestor, while speaking sweetly, 85 To the works of bees, how, when it looks, did it not reach the apex of wonder, B [seeing] the immaterial mellifluence of your mind 90 during sweetness? For you do not have poison; You select what is useful from every flower For every season; for not for spring alone. Like a bee, you hold the laws as a sting. 90 But you do not destroy, nor do you strike into the depths. For if you should find a member worthy of a blow, You use the laws, as a sting, for fear; 95 But you spare in every way; and often the sting Leaps forward to strike and again is retracted, And the active force, being restrained by sympathy, Remained idle; for even if sharp inclination...
VARIOUS READINGS
(73) *chronou*. (74) *andreias*. (80) *protheis*. (87) *eklegei*? (95) *sumpathei*?NOTES
He says: through the *Iliad* he portrays the bravery of the body, and through the *Odyssey* the nobility of the soul, and distributes the virtues to each man—bravery to Ajax, sagacity to Odysseus, daring to Diomedes, and prudence to Nestor. Thus, he puts forward for us an image of a good life and accurate virtue.(73) Concerning the phrase "time having shown." (75) On the four-fold character. (77) "Quadriform" and "four-square." (79) He is truly good and four-square, without blame. (95) "Active" force used as a substantive.
C ...and called him the father and master of all knowledge. Confer Gisbert Cuper’s *Apotheosis*, in which the praises of the prince of poets are recounted most abundantly, and Friedrich Reimann’s *Iliad*, in which the faults or stains of the same are uncovered. In the Vatican codex, an unskilled hand wrote the word above.
(75) And of those, that is, having them. Consult, if you please, Aristotle’s *Ethics*, which more subtly and clearly than all others discoursed upon every kind of virtue. (76) If Homer had known Heraclius, and the heroes, as he ought, he would have exhibited them not as to be regarded by one or another title alone, but as endowed with every praise of virtue. (79) Which is the virtue of Heraclius, the integrity of the soul, perfect, which embraces all virtues. (81) By "quadriform," although [he intends] a single aspect to be painted, Heraclius and any true hero, Pisida says, are looking toward the four virtues which are commonly called "cardinal." Thus in *Hexaem.* 170 he calls them angels, so that he may designate their perfection, since Pisida differs nothing from Aristotle, to whose *Nicomachean Ethics* 1, that strong man is truly good and four-square, without blame. (82) *v. Iliad*, 1, 249. (85) He commends under the allegory of bees and honey the mellifluence of Heraclius, his goodness and clemency, which virtue most befits a prince; for therein he describes the divine clemency in nearly the same way. (88) The same iambic recurs in *Hexaem.* 1658. (90) He writes that these verses in *Hexaem.* 458 and following... (95) The word D "active" is used not only in neutral [contexts] but also in other kinds as a substantive: thus "active" [means] active power or calamity.
ON THE PERSIAN EXPEDITION. ACR. I.
blunted by your grace, and now, as if from a feeling of humanity, the sting drips honey instead of gall. But the delight of your virtues has drawn me aside from the subject at hand; hence, I turn again to cultivate the furrows of my discourse and sow the seeds. A For the black night of my adversaries had spread over the entire world; for there was no limit to the Persian greed, but they reached out their appetites for slaughter. Yet, even in such a dim and dismal evening, you yourself did not turn to sleep at all; for the density of our cares, as was fitting, drove sleep away from you. Many drew up for themselves, quietly in their own minds, laws for counsel and strategy, saying that it was necessary for the majesty of the king A to stand ready in the emergencies of battle. Others, on the contrary, argued back, struggling in discourse, saying that it was dangerous for the majesty [of the king] to launch itself into ready-made perils. Some, imagining in their own hearts a judgment from both [sides], expressed it sophistically, so that one should both remain [at home] and run to the struggles with counsel. But the common words were blameless; for the opinions did not hold a wicked turn. And you, O commander (for you were commander of all, and you yourself had realized these things better than the others), having given to all the power of speaking, made God the judge of things unseen. B Where the virgin faith approaches, she is adorned from on high with white hope.
Having celebrated the greatest day, [when the whole human race rose to a divine and new reformation],
135 [immediatly after this, you represent Moses,] who led the battle-line against the second Pharaoh—if indeed one does not err in calling him the second, who truly was the first in sin. B Taking that divine and venerable form of the unwritten writing, which hands did not paint, but the Word, who shapes and fashions all things, formed it in an image—He who carries the molding without painting, just as He carried the conception without seed, as He knows how—it was necessary for Him to be formed again without painting, so that through both the Word being fashioned, the trust of the incarnation might remain, and the error of the Phantasiastai C might be refuted. Trusting in this divinely-written type, you made a divine beginning to the struggles; for the pleading Word had to be present at the moving of the trial. On the second day of the festival, having at once embarked on the ships, you cut the liquid path with strength. D
A And immediately you sailed past the Heraean places—for this is how they named it, having received 160 the succession of the error that previously prevailed, until you piously transformed it, changing the shame of the error into the celebrity of its name. I am afraid, in recalling these places, to pass over in silence the piety you recently established in them; for it will soon be a loss 165 for those after us as well. But again, in my digression, I see that while I wish to run the useful course of my purpose, some distracting element of the discourse might hasten to check the rider with voiceless bridles.
The south wind had blown in the opposite direction, 170 and the currents were surging, flowing back, and the dark night and the boiling waves created a double necessity of storm. But you, most mighty one, spent the sleepless evening 175 as was your custom, if indeed it is proper to call evening that which for you was day. A voice of sharp wailing from afar thundered upon your pious mind; for, being unhappily driven by the waves, 180 the merchant ship struck against a rocky ledge. A great and foaming roar of currents, raising its sound entirely to the rocks, was violently spitting the foam outward; and the waves, having struck the stones, 185 as if from a powerful recoil, were casting far the spray of liquid substance. The sailors had come to such constraint 190 that there was nothing that did not portend death; for the necessity of the danger made them appear as dead men, buried in a brief time. But immediately, a hope—and you, surpassing hope, shone forth upon them in the sea as a light-bearer, 195 showing forth a light sweeter than the sun. For that one knows how to burn the bodies, but you, piously, bedew the hearts. And, having run out toward the ship itself, laboring, you drew all toward readiness, as they were blushing, because
A in such a great handiwork of fine deeds. For the multitude of dispatch-boats ran together intently into one, and everyone, having been equipped in arms at that time, having cast away his bow and let go his shield, was arming himself for the watery skirmishes. And even those who had the seeds of the procreative organs severed—if one may say it—for the sake of favor, one could see at that time running together to the same place, not having had their masculine nature cut away at all. Thus, each one was gladly striving to take part in a portion of your labors. Nevertheless, all were bringing thanks to you, and for you, all that was done was eagerly pursued, so that the first reward might coincide with the cause and the occasion of the deed. B Just like a ship rooted by necessity, the sailors, taking hold with rope cables, were pulling the boat as best they could, until, having exerted their strength, they pulled the ship with difficulty, which had fallen into the trap of the rocks. O empathetic mind and strength of soul, and the one care that was sufficient for all!
Again you are concerned, and again you join battle against the storm; for neither the danger of the sea's surge nor the storm of the earth provided an interruption to your zeal. But as a wise man in the steering of a storm, seeing the wild gusts of winter, then displays his skill even more, and by his reasoning, having outstripped the triple-waves, he cuts through the current of the storm while turning back, and frequently empties out the violence of the wind, so having mastered the necks of life, when there is winter and a disturbance of affairs, C outstripping each triple-wave of calamities, partly you cut through, and partly you empty out the violence, and partly, piously turning upward, you extinguished the surge of earth and sea.
And Envy, seeing these things and groaning (for it knew it had suffered great damage, seeing so many saved in a short time), strikes the tip of the toe of your foot, having fashioned itself, as it seems, into a stone; and a hot stream of blood shot forth, dyeing the earth and calling for a witness. For it was fitting that, for an undiminished grace, there should be upon you the stigmata of piety.
A But as you snatched that vessel of necessity from such great waves, Demosthenes, come forth with boldness. Reasons hold sway; do not be troubled now by fear. Philip is not present, but the Master. There is no danger, and even if you should be silent, it is a matter of all having been generally and well defeated. But I, as the arguments urge me, hasten back again to the paths from the start. For you did not provide any obstacle to the ships, until, having journeyed along the path of the currents, you stood at those called the Gates, arriving as an unexpected courier. From there, just as a plug of a fountain's course D may the Word of God, who shields you everywhere, preserve through you this entire worldly vessel from the storm forever.
Moving from the veins in the depths, it is joined together 15 and gathers the streams, but in the distributions it is divided in varied ways; so too, having opened the veins of your intellect, by your varied and wise division you divide yourself into parts of your works. For who is the general? The Emperor before all. Who is to teach the laws of military ordering? 20 All immediately looked to you. Who is the secure counselor in necessities? Again, the turn of eyes is toward you. How well it is with a monarchy ruling under God! B
ON THE PERSIAN EXPEDITION. ACROASIS II
Ast sicut illud tu ex angustiis navigium atque ex tanta tempestate eripuisti, 250 sic totam late mundialem navim servet per te semper a procellis, quod te ubique tuetur, Dei Verbum.
B Prodeas, Demosthenes, et confidenter loquere. Loquendi est potestas: ne te nunc timor exagitet. Non adest Philippus, sed despota, periculum est nullum, et si tu silueris, 5 late et plene omnibus devictis. Ego quidem rursus currere, incitante sermone, per inceptos cursus recens propero: non enim intervertisti cursum navibus, usque dum emensis undarum viis 10 ad Pylas, ut vocantur, pervenisti, astans improvisus hemerodromus. Tum vero sicut scaturigo fontis, quae exsiliens ex venis in imo absconditis in unum coalescit, tumetque ex collectis rivulis, 15 ac varie in varias partes dividitur, sic tu reclusis tuæ mentis venis tua varia et sapienti distributione te ipsum dividis in varias partes operum. Quis enim dux? imperator pro omnibus. 20 Quis de ducendo exercitu det leges? Omnes in te statim intuebantur. Quis in necessitatibus tutus consiliarius? Rursus in te conversio oculorum. Quam bene est imperanti cum Deo monarchiæ! 25
A For it was not a multiform anarchy, but a monarchy ruling with God, which fosters and directs all things by the Word and overturns disordered unrest. For nothing is so noxious as this disease of disorder, which creeps, bites, and consumes nature, and seizes upon its vital parts. 30 But if I should wish to recount the manifold kinds and the differences of the cares which you willingly undertook instead of all others, I shall be judged as having missed a double hope: as one who neither describes these things in speech nor proceeds to speak of the things that must be said. 35 You marked out the paths of the expedition, and your own ways were those of tactical skill. Your table, your drink, and your food were prepared among shields and arrows. Your every word was a practical one, and a rhythm and rule for every good counsel. 40 For having found the army, which before was heavy with the sloth of neglected disorder, you quickly brought it to good order with words and forms, shaping, dividing, demonstrating, depicting, 45 like a pedagogue of armored letters. O most excellent mind, imitating the Ocean, circling the earth and running through all things, watering all minds and remaining full! 50 How many tempests of cares, one after another, did you undergo in a short space of time, acting, worrying, preparing, and writing beforehand, so that you might harmonize the multitude of the army scattered in many parts of the earth 55 (for the fear was not slight that the barbarian, having reached the place earlier, would divide and pass through your split legions)! 60 And how, with better judgments, you confirmed the plans that often did not run together with the hopes of the goal, I will willingly pass over. For you yourself, Master, laboring at such things, sought to escape notice, 65 that the common interest might not share in the labor. Yet they came together, just as from a certain mountain that has many peaks and positions, streams flowing through a multifarious channel 70 come together into one from their divided paths. A well-fitting admiration came over me,
A how the flow of so many thoughts was prudently ordered by your own mind. Yet, it seems, the efficacious Word of God standing over them bent not only the necks 75 of all, but their hearts as well. Since all, running to your footsteps, B praised your God-supported power as if from a single accord, and bowed down to the ground the crests of their trophies like lofty hills, 80 those [banners] that were arranged in a swift variegation are heralds of tactical movements, seen from afar and near by the whole gathering. All unanimously proclaimed you a common A benefactor and ruling master, 85 and you, having taken the awesome reflection of that God-written image, spoke briefly: "To me, indeed, the relationship unites you as brothers, just as the manner of the kingdom has joined us. For we declare that power is not so much in fear 90 as it shines forth in love. For it is our law to bring in now, against the inhuman violence that tyranny has armed against the laws, the humane violence, and to set this one against the many, 95 or against those constantly irreproachable needs B that force the laws well-established. Thus, in the manner and form that I [was saying], this one..."
VARIAE LECTIONES
78. Acclamations were always made before the emperor as he passed by. Examples of such vows and greetings exist in histories and ancient coins. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, book 2, p. 504, relates that it was thus acclaimed by the nobles to Heraclius: "Fortunate for the republic, Heraclius Augustus, you conquer, Anastasia Augusta, you conquer." More elegant formulas of acclamation by which soldiers greeted Christian emperors are recounted by the same Constantine Porphyrogenitus, p. 375. 80. Banners and poles the soldiers would lower, invert, or incline, either to signify obedience toward the princes or to express sadness of mind; which is observed even now in military discipline. More on this custom in the notes to Constantine, just mentioned, p. 199. Pisida, by poetic license, relates that the tops of the trophies were lowered in the presence of Heraclius. 81. Banners, which were to be viewed from every side, performed the duty of heralds for the fulfillment of military tasks. This, indeed, the Romans called "proposing the banners," as I gather from Caesar, *Bell. Gall.* 2, 20: "The banner to be proposed," which was a sign when it was necessary to hasten to arms. See *acroas.* 1, 140. Pisida always strives to represent Heraclius to us as entirely different from the Homeric leaders, who were conspicuous for only one or another virtue—as has been observed in *acroas.* 1 and 66—namely, as loaded with every kind of virtue. So far regarding his piety, military science, greatness of spirit, and prudence; now regarding his eloquence, in which he always makes him most excellent. How great this praise is, those know who have learned from histories what the faculty of speaking can do in a supreme leader. But he proposes to us here such a Heraclius as Homer made Achilles in *Iliad* 15, 443, to whom Phoenix is said to have been sent. See *Leon. Tact.*, ch. 2.
NOTAE
88. I shall subjoin the allocution in that place from Theophanes; that you may more easily understand it to be a paraphrase in iambics of Pisida, which Theophanes himself wove into his own History from Pisida, I will exhibit it distinctly: "Having relied on this God-written image, he began the contests, having given pledges to the people that he would struggle alongside them even unto death, and that he would bind himself to them as to his own children; for he wished to possess authority not so much by fear as by love. 'But having found the army,' he said, 'in great sloth, cowardice, unworthiness, and disorder, and scattered into many parts of the land, I quickly brought them all into one; and all with one accord sang of the power and bravery of the king.' He himself, encouraging them with these words, said: 'See, brothers and children, how the enemies of God have trampled our country, and devastated the cities, and burned the altars, and filled the tables of the unbloody sacrifices with blood of slaughter, and defile with most passionate pleasures the churches that are immune to such sufferings.'" And indeed, this allocution perfectly corresponds to the precepts that are read in Leo, emp. ch. 12, 72: For Pisida appears to have drawn all those things pertaining to military discipline from Leo's *Tactics*. But since Leo flourished nearly three hundred years after our author, the opinion of those becomes more probable who say that Leo compiled his *Tactics* from the commentaries of ancient writers, which, it is not to be doubted, were current even in the times of Pisida. See Fabricius, *Bibl. Graec.* VI, 568. 90. To the tyranny, Heraclius opposed his own gentleness and clemency. For Phocas did not care that he was hated, provided he was feared; Heraclius, however, preferred to be loved rather than feared. Very well, indeed: for as Cornelius Nepos defined in *Dione*: "No empire is safe unless it is fortified by benevolence."
A It violently attacks laws that are well-established. I, for my part, in this manner and habit and form— He, being the common king and Lord And the leader of our armies, With whom it is safer to wage war, Through whom it is more pious to win, In whom trusting, I too have arrived, As one of you, I arm myself for labors. For it is fitting for us, as his creatures, To march against enemies who worship creatures, Who have mingled tables untouched by blood With murderous pollutions of blood; Who pollute the churches—untouched by passions— With most unrestrained pleasures; Who wish to uproot with barbarian sword The vine planted by the Word; Against whom David divinely prophesied, Saying: "Blessed is he who dashes the children of Persia Against the ground." Thus you turned them all from sloth A To readiness by your word. Thus, by putting forward the common Commander and Lord, God, you secure the empire. And indeed, quickly surpassing the delay, You initiate the common exercises of the army. A longing came over me right there To see the pleasant preliminaries of battle And, without fear, to contemplate fear. Yet the manner of the contests, being terrible, Also induced an appearance as it began. For there was an armed order, carefully prepared, Where were trumpets and phalanxes of shields, Spear-points, quivers, and arrows, and blades, And a terrible clashing of breastplates was fashioned From garments interwoven of iron, In which the sun’s lamp, shining By reciprocal exchanges, as if by responses, Sent forth a lightning-like glimmer. B And when, formed as adversaries, They tightened their ranks securely,
then shield met sword, and swords met shields, pushing with violent contact on every side, and with much bloodshed did the edge of the blades show the pattern of (this) art. And all was horrific, both fear and confusion, and a clashing of blood towards slaughter without blood. A For you knew how to show them wisely, before the necessity, the limits of necessity, so that each one, having taken precautions from the bloodless slaughter, might remain safer. To speak then of each detail, and to write of that varied innovation of art, my mind—tossed about by the resonant word—faints in my fearful heart. But just as a stream, pushed forward by some force, quickly flows back to an ebb, so those waves of the army, stirred by your running word, whether toward your face or in the opposite direction, B pursued their way with reciprocal speed. And in the face of such a tumult you did not lose heart, but you drew it and relaxed the tensions, you deployed, you counter-deployed, wherever the movement of your hand was turned by the word. How, being one, were you able to adapt yourself to such a multitude? And how did you reconcile—with your word striking with a well-measured tone—so many peoples and diverse moral differences and the divisions of minds, not as another mythic figure drawing wild beasts to himself, but drawing them into a single resolve, (reconciling) the confusion of so many tongues? Yet it is not unreasonable to think that the all-holy Spirit was also at work currently, not—as with the fire-bearing division and contemplation of tongues—by visible means, but by Itself instilling into your tongue the appropriate grace, and by the same Spirit, you had all who were previously slack, C quickly taught and ready, with you as leader and master. And I, although not a prophet, O Master, arriving in anticipation, signaled this in my first discourse.
A You have done nothing in your negligence; indeed, by writing to your commanders everywhere regarding what is beneficial, you have made no error, for whatever was needed to be positioned under your authority moved at once to follow. Your practical wisdom of mind proved us not to be deceived. From this, fears do not disturb us, anxieties do not enervate our zeal, calamities do not bite, nor does toil oppress; for divine love, running through our midst, gathers and reinforces the sinews of our body in times of distress and circumstance. Just as a sophist, having joined the experience of medical science with his discourse, does not leave the disease lurking secretly in the depth of the injury, but at once cuts it out—either by severing it with a blade, or burning it away with a cautery, or cleansing it by purging the causes hidden within—so did you, finding the body of the army at that time damaged by the disease of malice, B restrain them from their evil greed, having purified their appetites from harm by your word. For you knew that it is easiest to rule over enemies once you have ordered your army in piety. From this, victory flew to you at once, bringing trophies from the Persian spoils before the battle. Since you had left nothing neglected, but were sending out well-organized raiding parties—cavalrymen fast-paced for hunting everywhere—those who brought them in a short time were present. These were not contemptible breeds of wild beasts, but ones that stood out and held power through their ferocity, and had often harmed the neighborhood. Yet even these, although they were wild beasts, you did not disdain to include in your clemency. Although having left aside the many for now, I chose to describe the multitude of them in one instance: there was a chieftain of a daring tribe present, the Saracen regiment of the long-haired ones. C
[Regarding the Greek text fragment on medicinal cures (Hippocrates): "Whatever medicines do not cure, iron cures; whatever iron does not cure, fire cures; and whatever fire does not cure, these must be considered incurable."]
Malice—So, having armed everyone, he ordered them to refrain from lawlessness. Gentleness/Mildness—Having arrived in those parts, a multitude of cavalry running ahead planned to fall upon the King by stealth. But those who were patrolling ahead of the King encountered them, led their commander captive to Heraclius, and having routed the others, slew many.
A Advancing with him, and peering about in order To fall upon your army unawares, to cause harm. But as he was allied with a greed-driven stratagem, Wishing to steal, he himself was stolen against in turn, And by the feet of your men, who are vigilant all day, They lead the former commander in as a captive. And when he was brought before your majesty, O master, He who had taken the tear-filled captivity As a source of free sustenance, He who fared unhappily, yet happily, if one must say (For having approached you, he exchanges his fortune), He casts off his chains, and all his calamities He immediately turned, changing them into joy. And seeing the reversal as occurring most quickly, A He judged his salvation to be an overturning, Hoping the prisoner would command again. Thus the mind is armed in manifold ways, And often campaigns with reasonings, Employing restraint rather than the sword, And draws even the faithless Barbarians to itself. And these things were done by you with wisdom, But for the commander of the error, the opposite was the case, Who made a business of instruments and cymbals, An indecent sound, and the dance of alien women Excited for the purpose of nakedness. But you, commander of the wise panoply, Placing the divine sound in your heart,
A decent was the exultation of the virgins, your own mind’s purest hopes. He had placed all his hope in the moon; 250 but when you struck it, like the sun, he suffered a violent eclipse. To him, fire was proposed for worship; to you, however, most mighty one, the wood [the Cross] raised on high. And since it stood conspicuous from above, 255 it was manifest that the Persian fire was kindled in vain. For since the winter season had lingered in the Pontic region, the Barbarian had quickly blocked all the approaches of the road; but your army, blocked on every 260 side and positioned against the sun, could scarcely attack the enemy, having been anticipated in the occupation of the road toward the sun. Here you devised a most rapid conversion and a design of praiseworthy artifice.
B You discovered, O most mighty one, how to show the Barbarians a face of feigned march, 265 while sharpening your own mind, so that with cleverness, having turned, you might snatch the paths from them. And when the impious one, deceived, had hastened all the more along crooked and devious tracks, 270 in order to rush toward your face, you turned back with a double-faced maneuver, and the second was immediately found to be the first. Thus, thinking he was happily outrunning you, having been tripped by you, he wretchedly turned back. Thus, through such generalship and wise artifice, 275 you alone succeed, and a wise dissimulation. And this variety of purpose cast the Barbarians even more into sloth. For not thus—so savagely raging...
He has passed the beast by a turning course, And no other man, driving horses by the reins And showing them obliquely, swiftly outstrips them. As you, having grasped the reins of the army, Passed by running beneath in a turning maneuver, And having cast the transgressor with a strange deceit, Before the battle, you let him loose into a stand-off. Then, on the sixth day slipping by, He had tidings of his own calamities From unexpected reports. Great concern for his shaken mind Held him, and confusions of thoughts Darkened his mind, being already obscured. For it is no small thing, but critical, A Even if the army advances a little bit, With many difficult things moving meanwhile For the foreign army, as is reasonable. For there was danger to them from famine, And from manifold destruction, And from hidden things for their harm, And from the best of the pre-occupations for battle: Thence was the danger; but still more Did it sting them to see the sun, Which they worship as the god of Persia, Standing opposite them in the battle array. For they say that Xerxes, in a frantic manner, Wishing to mix the separated natures, Wanted to turn water into land and the sea into earth. And he seems to me most foolish,
A who, thinking that he could overturn the order of things with senseless changes, was creating confusion; who, incited to terrify the Lacedaemonians B—as though he were a wonder-worker of opposing elements—was making the streams dry land and the stones into flows of water, and, churning everything and twisting and counter-twisting it, was creating not a shock but a stupefaction; who hastened to set up again C the foundations of the established and fixed boundaries; who reached such a turn that he scourged the water that was sacred to him, dear, and ancestral, not having from where he might quench his kindling madness. And to this end, what force was driving him? That water might be cut by a terrestrial course, and earth be traversed by a maritime path, so that, having traversed the way more quickly and easily at that time, he might overtake his enemies. And for a slight labor and an easy matter, he exchanged so many toils in vain.
VARIAE LECTIONES
(523) *de ponou, ponou de?* (529) *basilizon*NOTAE
[Regarding the note on 509]: Although Xerxes had in mind to triumph over all Greece, he desired nothing more ardently than to crush the Spartans, whom he had understood to be braver than the rest. For he had mocked Demaratus, who had once been king of the Spartans and was then an exile with him, because when asked whether the Greeks would resist with such great bellicose forces, he had freely replied: "The Lacedaemonians alone, it is not possible that they will ever accept your words, carrying slavery to Greece." He reached such a height of arrogance that, having considered the subduing of Greece a small task, he wished to leave behind a monument of such a kind that it is not of human nature.Regarding “He makes the streams dry land, and turns the stones to mud [τελματοῖ]”: We prefer to read it according to the codex as *rheumatoî* (makes into streams) rather than with Suda. For when Pisida alludes to the trench which Xerxes ordered to be made, so that Mount Athos might be cut off from the mainland, he should not, I think, be said to have turned stones into muck or a swamp, but to have rendered the ground fluid. For by this the force and the very truth of the matter are better expressed. For the breadth and vastness of the trench was such that, as Herodotus testifies, three triremes joined side by side could pass through and be propelled by oars.
Regarding the note on 513: I do not sufficiently grasp the force of this contrast: for I do not see how *ekplexis* (shock) and *ekplexia* (stupefaction) differ from one another, since no other examples of this word exist elsewhere. But if we determine that *ekplexia* is the same as what they call *obstupescentia* (stupefaction), namely a malady by which one, suddenly struck, neither sees nor hears, the meaning will be that the Lacedaemonians and Greeks were not terrified but stupefied by the immense warlike apparatus of Xerxes.
Regarding the note on 515: *Anthorothesai*, from *anti* (against/in return for), *horos* (boundary), and *tithemi* (to set), is to overturn established boundaries; *horothesia* is the designation of boundaries, [so] *anthorothesia* would be the destruction of boundaries. See above at verse 310 for the testimony of Isocrates, to which Pisida appears to intend to refer.
Regarding the note on 517: The water which the Persians honored; he rightly calls it *patrion* (ancestral) in Pisida: for the Persians had the sun and moon, fire and water, which they honored and invoked. Thus Darius in Curtius IV, 10: "Ancestral gods, first establish my kingdom for me; then, if my fate is already sealed, I pray that no one may be king of Asia other than this so just an enemy, this so merciful a victor."
Regarding the note on 518: When the storm had destroyed the bridge built at the Hellespont crossing, as Herodotus says, p. 396, Xerxes scourged the sea, and ordered the architects to bridge the Hellespont again. And so they immediately built a bridge onto which they wove strong cables: this is Herodotus, p. 396; from which it is clear why Pisida says the water was cut by a terrestrial path.
(525) See above 516. (526) Indicates the unfortunate outcome of the Persian expedition.
DE EXPEDITIONE PERSICA ACR. II
But you, O most valiant one, without disturbing the elements, and without shaking the established boundaries, proceeding tranquilly and walking gently, you easily passed by your opponents. And no path now remained open to the Barbarian in the concerns of his necessity; from helplessness, he then turned the volume of his arrogance toward humiliation. For on the one hand, a spirit stirred to anger possessed him, and persuaded him to turn back behind your power into a reverse movement; but he was wary of the opposites of his goal, seeing the outcomes everywhere obscure. On the other hand, he struggled to hasten back to the entrances of Cilicia, and the position of the road, difficult to encounter and narrowed by cliffs and ravines; but even here, a reversal possessed his mind again. A For the exit from Armenia was a vexation to him, lest you should rush forth from there and thoroughly disturb the whole of Persia. And while he raged much with illegitimate plans, he had a mind that stood firm nowhere; but as a round, unstable stone is driven toward a precipitous depth, and is overturned upon striking an obstacle, so the many rotations of the plans of this stone, pushed by unstable impulses, were overturned by contrary opinions. Yet he was led on, and like a dog bound by chains, he was dragged along by necessity. Vainly struggling and laboring in, he drove his double courses into one path. But as you attacked him, ready and fortified with your tactical skills, B
VARIOUS READINGS.
346 ἔνθεν Pindarus.NOTAE
For as Diodorus briefly narrates, XI, 56, Xerxes, having learned of the defeat at Plataea and the rout of his own men at Mycale... perturbed, advanced, making his way toward Ecbatana; for he did not find the pontoons still in place, but broken up by a storm. C When the king, having invaded Persia by way of Armenia, might disturb it, he did not have his own mind standing firm as to what he ought to do. Unstable, however, he was compelled to follow behind the Roman army. Anabasis: I would not, therefore, be surprised if the enemy, like cowardly dogs, pursue and bite those who are passing by, if they are able, but flee from those who pursue them, even if they themselves should follow us as we advance. D ...military [device], which was called an onager. Ammianus Marcellinus, XXIII, 4, describes the onager, which he concludes differs in no way from a scorpion. But Vegetius, IV, 22, distinguishes the onager from the scorpion, and says this of its force: The onager directs stones, but hurls weights of stones according to the thickness of the cords: for the larger it is, the greater the stones it whirls like lightning. We translate "titubanter positas" from the cited Marcellinus, XXIV, 4, where he speaks again of the onager. But if anyone should prefer our author to have looked not to the onager or the scorpion, but to stones which were sent down from an elevated place, I shall certainly permit it. For I remember the same Vegetius, IV, 8, saying: The largest stones in weight and round in shape are arranged on the ramparts, so that when sent down headlong they may not only overwhelm those advancing, but also shatter their machines. Theophanes, loc. cit., Pisida seems to have read Xenophon: for this is what he says in book I, p. 157:A 560 He knew that the battle was unequal to him, he pondered treachery, and he prepared 565 To take the night as an ally for his purpose. For he was now making ready for the attacks, Seeking a lightless time for his thefts. But since he saw the luminary that outshines The night to be shining brilliantly A 370 he took the lamp as a proof of his thievery, And he treated the moon, which he previously revered, As an adversary, now that it was no longer favored. And perhaps, chafing at this himself, The barbarian mind prayed that it [the moon] should not run toward growth, 375 But rather that the goddess of the Persians should wane.
III.
The goddess of the Persians suffered an eclipse; she suffered an eclipse, in both word and deed. I think, however, that she rejoices in having declined, failed, and diminished for the sake of the Persian ruin; for she always prefers to be eclipsed for them rather than, as one worshipped impiously, to shine upon them. B But for us, the lamp of the sun of the Master warms us and now rekindles our words; and Phoebus, godly, comes forth to us, purging everyone with a purifying word. And he abhors the boundaries of Loxias, fleeing the twisted riddles of error.VARIOUS READINGS.
NOTAE.
564. He calls the Persian effort "theft," because C they intended to attack the Romans by night. Leo Imp., XIV, p. 181, calls the machinations of the enemy "tricks," as I think, from Herodotus, who often mentions "tricks and machines" of the enemies. But if the most learned Brissonius is to be heeded, lib. III, that Virgilian line, "whether by treachery or valor, who would ask in an enemy?" certainly did not fall into the minds of the Persians. For he says they thought the enemy should be crushed in open warfare, and they considered it utterly shameful to steal a victory. Plutarch, in *Crassus*, relates that it was foreign to the custom and the ancestral institutions of the Parthians to fight by night. Wherefore it must be said that that ancient military discipline of the Persians had been completely changed in the time of Heraclius.
566. Theophanes, ibid., steals the thought of the war, and to attack them during the lightless night.
568. The same, ibid. Pisida utters this passage: the night being moonless, he was repelled from the plan, and he spoke ill of their previously revered moon; but the moon stood against them that very night by coincidence.
570. He had the lamp as a proof of the theft.
571. That portents taken by leaders on both sides when a solar eclipse occurs between warring peoples were widely confirmed, ancient histories show, from which we think it not ours to adduce examples. This, however, is to the point, which Herodotus, lib. VII, p. 595, reports: When, as Xerxes was moving camp from Sardis, the sun was eclipsed, he asked the Magi what that phantom wished to portend; and they said that the god was showing the Greeks an eclipse of the cities, saying that the sun was the protector of the Greeks, and the moon of them [the Persians]. To these, Q. Curtius, VIII, 10, is entirely similar: for when Alexander had defeated Darius at the Granicus, the moon was eclipsed. The king orders the Egyptian seers to explain what they thought of the matter; but they affirmed that the sun was the protector of the Greeks, the moon of the Persians; so often as it was eclipsed, ruin and slaughter were portended for those nations; and they recount old examples of the kings of Persia, whom the eclipse of the moon had shown to have fought with the gods against them. Since, therefore, the religion and confirmed opinion of the Persians was so great in this matter, it is no wonder that they desisted from their undertaking, terrified, and broke off the intended fraud, lest they seem to want to fight against adverse gods. And hence it is clear why Pisida says the Persians held the moon as an adversary, as contrary, as not their own, when nonetheless it was the widely accepted opinion of all that it stood for the Persians.
574. They were beseeching, lest the moon approach an increase: for the greater and longer the eclipse had been, the graver evils they feared were hanging over them...
576. He reproves those who, trusting in the prophecies of the Magi and the responses of oracles, thought the moon stood for them, as we just observed, II, 376. But he shows that Christians do not hold the ridiculous delusions of prophets and Phoebades for certain and indubitable, but rely on the truth of the Scriptures, the power and light of which is so great that all darkness is dispelled from confused minds. Furthermore, the poet plays, as he is accustomed, and out of too much zeal for antitheses often transfers profane names to sacred things. Thus now he opposes the godly Phoebus to the Pythian or Delphic Apollo, namely Heraclius, of whom he so speaks that nothing greater could match God.
A And now, while many things were in motion, fifteen days had passed, in which you, unceasingly rushing into combat, were inciting the army to engage. The Barbarian, however, being such by race and by nature, could not hold the reins of his mind at all; for often he seemed to promise battle, and fell into such shame that, having attacked you daily, he was driven back, daring what was undaring and running in retreat. He held the mountains like roes, and lingered among the rocks like hares out of fear. This plan of his wickedness was not without purpose, though in doing this he was immediately caught; for he ran into inaccessible places so that he might find an excuse for delaying the battle of your prepared troops. B But you were leading your own well-prepared army against the land that was spread out; and the Barbarian, having looked from the mountain at your artistic and wise strategy, and being struck by such great order, planted his ranks with fear and remained petrified like the stones themselves. These are not words colored for favor, but they are entirely simple words of truth, which, if we were to keep silent, the very stones would soon emit voices concerning the deeds done. Since the cowardice of the Barbarian provided a great delay from habit (for being a coward and a poltroon, he only seemed manly in the pretense of battle), he kept his battle lines C unmoving; for they were stationed only in such a way as painters paint images. Here you dare even more than Alexander himself.
A Excellent in judgment, yet without risk. Not because you were unwilling to run into danger, but because you were unwilling to be deceived by lack of prudence. For a general who relies on good counsel is secure, and he is not made more secure by rashness. And so, between the armies, you then pitched your tent, providing easy opportunities for battle; and your dinner was prepared in the middle, but only for appearance. For your mind did not have a desire for food, but a greed for common salvation. In this way, you safely held them in contempt, providing materials both strange and vast, so that through them you might ignite the battle. Thus, provoking the evildoer like a dog, you hastened to snatch him into war. § But you did not persuade him to rush out at all, neither daring nor even playing at battle; for by your reputation—which appeared ignored—your disdain, I think, all the more A cast the Barbarians into anxiety. From then on, no one easily ventured forth, nor did any of the enemy’s battle lines leap out; for all were as if they had been turned into stone. And the strange sight of your tent was constructed as a bulwark against the Barbarians, standing as a wall for your own servants. For divine justice, running everywhere in one day, did not spare the foreigners, but the towering tents of the Barbarians B fell completely; for your men, approaching from one side, would often mix in battle. Then, however, you alone spurred each of your chosen men toward zeal, always leaping forward vigorously in the battles, drawing your bow and extending your shield, and doing everything for all, before all, by which each one was immediately incited to find danger rather than, while his lord was laboring so, not to share in the labor.
A
And everyone who was faint-hearted, looking at you, Transformed his mind into boldness; For he knows that the work leads to success, When the master is armed before all men. And someone said, speaking to his fellow-soldier: “O the necessity! The king and master Is armed for battle like one of us! And now an iron tunic, instead of purple, Constricts his back and weighs upon his neck, And much dust, mingled with his hair, Covers a figure of such delight; He shields himself from this burning sun, Drenched everywhere with warm sweat, Which, of necessity, from his constricted limbs, Violent labor wrings from his body.” As he said this, he sighed greatly from the depths, B And mingled his tears with his words. But the other immediately answered him back: “But it does not strike my mind so much To see the master now suffering hardship, As much as this makes me marvel, that He hastens gladly toward necessities, And considers labors to be delights. For he appears more splendid holding a spear, Than holding the scepters of power; And he carries this shield more lightly, And, as I see, far more sweetly than a diadem. And since for us he has lately extinguished slaughters, Now for us he is arming himself for slaughter. And now, extending his black-booted foot, It is more decorous than those who do not turn back, And he remains more precious than the base; For he wishes to dye it with a strange dye, Making it red from Persian bloods. What stony hearts does he not soften? What cowardly minds does he not incite? And he persuades us most easily to bear every danger, He who is neither drawn away by the affectionate nature of a mother, Nor again so much by his children, As he is inflamed toward us in his affection.” C
[Regarding the Greek text following the verse § 99: “And again, and now first he undertook the task, and realized that he must hasten, and was not pleased by delay, and feared to be disobedient; and the multitude was no longer disposed as a slave being commanded, but was shamed as one being exhorted on equal terms. Heraclius was middle-aged, strong-chested, fair-eyed, with slightly bluish-gray eyes, blond hair, white in complexion, having a broad beard hanging down to a length. Seeing him wearing black footwear, George of Pisidia said with such humility: ‘O King, having wound the black-dyed sandal around your foot, may you dye it red from the blood of the Persians.’ Black-booted: sandals, footwear up to the knee of purple color, which it is permitted only for the Emperor of the Romans and Persians to wear. Red...”] D
A
Having said these things, and sighing fiercely, 130 With his sighing he wrought slaughter. For these things, O most mighty one, I also naturally felt with them Who think rightly, and I felt more pain, Being confounded by the similarity of the tears; For joy often nourishes joy, 135 And tears stir up tears in someone. Such, for us, were tears without sorrow. But it is not right to conceal with words The Persian cloak of craftiness, For the teacher of error knows them, 140 And shows them, even while fighting on our side, to be thankless, For the habit kin to malice Always changes into law among them. B I will tell the whole cause of the purpose. For indeed one of them in previous time, 145 Having deserted to your army, a Barbarian— But yet a Persian (and I describe everything)— Seemed to be faithful, though born of faithlessness, And, having been eager to fight on our side, Was appropriately stationed in your army. 150 Now, for him, a cycle of fourteen days Was being fulfilled, When he, unhappily, to the Barbarians themselves Ran back with unsteady steps, Having been found, like a shield-thrower, a second time; Yet he did not err in doing this without purpose. For the times of cowardice that had passed before Persuaded him that the armies of Persia Would again prevail in the battle. But these crooked counsels of deceit 160 Availed him nothing in the midst of it. For his heart, moving unsteadily, Had hopes that were also unstable, And he had the outcomes everywhere contrary, And he had them wandering together in his calculations. 165 For, aghast at the calamity prevailing among the Barbarians And the cowardice among them, And seeing bitter hopes against hope, Again he ran back to us swiftly, And having not kept his word, he was saved quickly, 170 Having found your word to be ready. Thus you receive all who run, And you expect those who do not run to be saved.
He recounted to us the entire lack of courage A Of the Barbarians, and perhaps in those same words he prayed That he might thus look upon the enemies to the end As they are now all terrified. The Barbarian, shaking everywhere, 180 Plans to dare some terrible thing out of violence; For, as usually happens, crisis also Begets in fear terrible designs. And indeed, having watched for the suitable time B Of necessity according to him, as it seemed, 185 When the dawn rises up from the depths And the bright messenger of day comes forth, He draws his army up in three divisions, With the battalions seeming to stand face to face With your phalanxes, executing a trick; 190 And having arranged the elite of your army, He hid them in the midst of the ravines, So that when those had burst forth from the depths Unexpectedly and contrary to hope, with fear He might throw into confusion a part of your battalions; For of the times of lack of courage that had passed, A A customary hope was deceiving him, That if some part of the army were to be dissolved, A slip into rout might run through the whole. But your strategy was not unprepared, But was armed against him with your readiness. 200 For before the night could take its mid-point, You knew by habit, through your cares, All their hidden tricks; And having divinely ordered and regulated the army, You led them forth to battle, when 205 The sun, rising up, was again Darkening the enemies, the holy sun to them. And indeed you send forth a well-numbered part Of your army, O most powerful one, having armed them Not so much with weapons as with good counsel. B 210 For when they marched out as if for battle, They again fashion the feigned fear, Fleeing in a deceptive way. And the Barbarians, That solid cloud of their elite, Having fallen from the unseen furrows, 215 Were driving them, thinking they were fleeing. But you lead against them with speed
They turned their backs to your servants. O continuous mind and most piercing nature, And fire of calculations running through the depths! Yet fire indeed both blackens and burns; But your mind, O best one, whitens everything, Warms all and will set ablaze without burning. The Barbarian, having found the hidden trap— A pit for himself, on the contrary— He sent forth all the allies he had From his own cohorts, But when he saw them too struck with terror And falling swiftly in uncontainable fear, First he cursed his own impious leaders And quickly dishonored those he had honored, Pouring out water and quenching the fire. And making many confusions of smoke, He steals his flight and sketches the gloom, And makes night, innovating the day. And having found cliffs and narrow passes B And rock-ledges and difficult paths, He thrusts, having covered with cloud, the regiments And their unfortunate families Toward the high summit and the sloping depths. Hence for them of manifold misfortunes And of falls and slaughters and fractures, A danger was prepared, full of destruction. And somewhere one of them out of necessity prayed To encounter a sharper sword against him. Another, sitting on horseback, Was lifted on high by the violence of the pressure. For many, the camels’ sides Offered a wall—such was the pressure of the moment. All, like wild goats, Tracked out jumping-leaps of flight. But your entire army's encampment, Beholding the divine judgment, rejoiced At the miracles of your paradoxical generalship— For there was not the flight of a winged arrow In the space between the armies, And everyone of ours looked easily upon the others.
Against the false battlements of the cliffs, A In which the multitude of the Barbarians, having poured forth, Were crowded together and remained motionless. But they were in such a storm of anxieties, Flowing just like the waves, Which are pushed by their own currents; Some rise up from the depths to the heights, Others fall forward and are hollowed out again. Thus those disordered ranks of theirs Were tossing amid the waterless rocks; Some were rising up from the depths to the heights, 270 While others, falling toward the very edges of the ground below, Were causing dense confusion. Thus each was foolishly wretched, And he who fell forward alone was envied; For everyone among them was judged fortunate 275 Who was found to be readier for dying. But for us, all was serenity and grace, And pleasure rather than fear was approaching.
A And everyone stretched out his hands toward God, the Creator of all creatures, With his heart, And prayed fervently for the general. For all who once could not even endure To see the Persian dust, at that time Did not even strike their tents, but each left The covering he had, just as it was pitched. But fear shook all the Barbarians. From then on, no one cast down The burden from his beast of burden, nor did he Fill his belly with food, nor did anyone, Bending his knee, make his labors lighter; But, throwing themselves in fear Into pathless and wandering tracks, They judged flight to be salvation. Thus, many and strange signs, Measuring against times that had already passed, He perfected his divine generalship. For who B would then be able to count the most warlike race of the Persians?
A Hope that they would turn their backs to the Roman sword? Who in such tempests of calamities could have hoped to find serenity in the midst? Who, in such a shortage of necessities, could have persuaded the cities to provide supplies, had you not once again driven the accursed ones far from our neighboring vicinity, you who weigh all things on the scales? But since those who were entangled in such confusion, the Barbarians, had long since desisted from the battle, you, O strongest one (for you still wished to remain, for your mind had grown callous toward labors), devised many well-reasoned arguments, wishing to be with the army and to run alongside it. B But since the nations toward the West, by custom, held an unyielding suspicion of a broken treaty, and again, because of new troubles being stirred up, the City required your presence, your army pleaded that you do this for the sake of necessity, with many prayers and tears (for it was compelled to sympathize with the City, and it determined that being deprived of you was a loss), the rest finally persuades you. For no one else prepares himself to receive something pleasant as quickly as he himself prepares himself for labors. Just as the manner of a faithful chief shepherd is—when he sees his flock surrounded by wicked and predatory beasts C he is at a loss as to where to turn to the fight, yet he labors, running about in every direction, if by any means he might snatch the flock from them—so you, seeing the faithful race of the rational flock surrounded on every side by infidel beasts, are at a loss each time, yet you labor and run about always, suffering everywhere from here to there, striking, pursuing, running out, returning, if by any means, offering yourself as a ransom, you might free the flock from blood. Therefore, having arranged all things in a wise manner, and having joined the army to the general, and having placed your hopes in God for them, you hasten again to the City itself, having accomplished and set so many things in order. D For not only...
A did you order the struggles of the battle, but you have also set your own soul right to a greater degree. For you yourself, recounting to us many times the measure of your life, made it clear that “having lived such a long time in leisure, I have finally lived these days for God.” And this is clear; for it is not fitting to cover the truth with the veil of falsehood. For now the mysteries of the Persian error B 350 come forth naked. Recently, the multi-headed error of the Hydra hidden among them deigns to extend one neck, which, as we now see, we marvel that it encountered Heracles and escaped safe. 355 I think, however, that you will soon see the dragon Chosroes himself taken prisoner and bound, unless one should conceive a just suspicion, C if it were delivered to you, that he might escape for a short time the due punishment. And as for me, as my thoughts were often moving, I gathered them within myself and said the following: If Ptolemy had the outcomes of the stars D and those of the future accurately fixed, how did he not proclaim what sort of Morning Star nature 365 was about to see in you at the end? But if he was, as seems likely, intent upon contemplating those things that transcend the boundaries of the earth, he proclaimed you with a loftier style; and of your expedition, and more than the stars, 370 observing the many movements in you, he praised your ever-moving mind, as another heaven fashioned anew for those below.
A Having learned of the mind within you through a strange discourse. These things, O leader of wise deliberations, entwined within the thorns of battle. Having found the divine roses of your labors, and the many flowers of spiritual aromatics, having gathered the seeds of your reasonings, I now bring to you this garland, woven from the immortal meadow of truth.
Yet, as one accustomed to traverse your sea with a small ship of short voyage, let me not be judged a culprit for not having crossed the whole; for a boundary cannot be bounded by that which has no end. B But, O leader of things above and things below (for by your Word every word exists, and all things run according to your will; you secure the abyss by your power, and make the earth suspended in the midst, and you fold together all the heavens like an arch by your commandment, as you will; to you every nature of things seen is a servant, and every creation beyond the mind is a fellow-servant), do you yourself, O best one, ruler of all, and distributor of all our affairs (for indeed you alone distinguish to everyone, as you will, the gifts of your graces), those which are for the fulfillment of our hopes; for in you there is no failing grace. Guide your own sub-leader, as you know how, to do all things as you will. Make him a faithful shield-bearer of your most holy commandments everywhere. Show him to be a terror to his enemies; and let every foreigner, rushing to slaughter, bow his neck before him with trembling. Make the labors which he has shed for his past offenses a cleansing. May he bring back a double victory over his enemies. May he set up trophies over both passions and Barbarians. Fill him, as you alone know how, with that fervor for you, just as Elijah, who, being inflamed towards you in mind and heart by fire, was deservedly snatched up on high. And show him to all as a new Moses, in pious armor against his enemies, stretching out the cross rather than his hands; that Moses who, seeing the bush and the fire, so well recognized your...
A flame in the bush, and the bush not consumed; Moses, whom you were seen by in the flesh, by yourself alone, and who saw you with a fleshly intuition, thus demonstrating that even God was to be incarnated. And therefore, I think, he communed with you also then, (425) with whom he was to commune when incarnate. This same man—the greatest of conquerors—do you fashion as you will, and as your commander. Bless the seeds together with the sower, and grant that the divine race of this seed (450) may rule forever over the Roman lands. Imprint upon these children the truly beautiful images of paternal forms, so that they may become, as it were, representations of the father, faithful mirrors of paternal characteristics, perfect in mind, (455) noble in morals, meek in spirit, compassionate in heart, gentle to us, but wrathful against their enemies—enemies who worship newly-invented gods, stretching out their hands wickedly, and extended toward the capture of error, while their feet in no wise stir for blood, but are swift everywhere to save. Guard the intellectual portals of these men, and make them inaccessible to Envy, B which, opposing the essence that is among us, is indeed alien to the species of the genus, but, bringing nothing at all to the substance, thinks it bites the substance of all things, dividing friends and partitioning the relationship, entangling brothers in the enmities of brothers, [alt-version omitted]
VARIOUS READINGS
439 worshipping: I would prefer pious. 456 of P.NOTES
419. That God spoke in the bush was the opinion of the ancients. See St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechises 10 and 11. But that the unburnt bush signified the incarnation of God, no one has failed to affirm. The bush was a symbol of the flesh, and the fire of the divinity; however, just as the fire did not consume the bush, so the deity did not consume the humanity; whence it is proved manifest that there are two natures in Christ, integral, unharmed, and unconfused. To this Pisidas certainly looks, intent above all on refuting the heresies of his own time. For by saying that Moses saw the fire in the bush, and the bush not burnt, he affirms against the Monophysites that Moses recognized two natures in the incarnate God.421. Pisidas represents Moses as being so present to God, and God himself to Moses, even as he was, clothed in flesh, and that Moses beheld God not in spirit but by fleshly contemplation, or rather, intuitively and with carnal eyes. It has indeed been argued often how Moses, Paul, and the prophets saw God. St. Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, bk. IV, ch. 20, proves by many arguments that no one saw God face to face, as He is. He says the prophets did not see the very face of God, but the dispositions and mysteries, through which man would begin to see God. These words, indeed, agree wonderfully with what the ancient author—especially Dionysius the Areopagite, *De caelesti hierarchia*, ch. 4, 5—tradites concerning this matter. Many Holy Fathers agree with Irenaeus, among whom should be consulted St. Augustine, *De Genesi ad litteram*, bk. XI, ch. 27 and 28, and *De Trinitate*, bk. II, ch. 17 and 18, who asserts that holy men and prophets beheld the divine essence, not with the eye of the body, but of the mind, as far as it is permitted to man.
452. For the form of this passage, compare verse 99 of this acroasis. 458. He alludes to the horse of the sun, of which see acroasis 1, 23. 439. *Worshipping* instead of *worshipping* [sic], namely that *they worshipped* with hands wickedly stretched out. Thus he represents the Persians idly boasting and stretching out their hands to heaven, so that he may oppose them to Christians who, with hands slightly spread out in the form of a cross over their breasts, as may be seen on many ancient monuments, pray to God.
441. He censures the sloth of the Persians, which makes them no less impious than vile. Furthermore, in these final verses he seems to intend that of Psalm 113, 15: *They have hands, and will not feel; feet they have, and will not walk... let those who make them become like to them, and all that trust in them*; as if he were to say that the Persians have truly become like the idols which they foolishly worshipped.
445. He correctly describes Envy as something utterly alien to human nature. For it is human to desire good things for oneself and others; it is of the envious man to be tortured only by the prosperity of others. Horace, *Epistles* I, 2, 57.
450. Pisidas, if I am not mistaken, foresaw the dissensions and hatreds that would be stirred up between the sons whom Heraclius had begotten, first by Eudocia and then by Martina Augusta.
And nurturing a sister hypocrisy; As Scylla and a wild Charybdis Range in the sea of life, And with their teeth, not only Odysseus, But all flesh they savagely tear. Preserve, O Christ, the King’s children, A From such malice and wickedness of envy. Defend them with the shelter of peace, Keeping in mind the Father’s teachings, (460) A lasting memory, and indeed, when they stand In the greatest need of it, for the benefit of affairs.
QUERCIUS’ ADMONITION ON THE AVAR WAR
Numerous and varied migrations of different peoples occurred in ancient times, and historians teach throughout that peoples of savage customs, having set out from the more remote parts of the North, burst into the southern regions. Strabo vouches for this in book V, p. 213, as does Ammianus Marcellinus, XXXI, 5. But none emigrated from their native abodes more frequently than the Scythians, who were also once called Sarmatians and Sauromatians. In very ancient times, clearly, the kings of the Scythians, distinguished for their virtue and arts of war, had subjugated much of the region beyond the Tanais river as far as Thrace, as Diodorus Siculus witnesses, II, p. 90; but the Scythians became much more famous among us in later centuries, when they occupied the whole world far and wide under various names of peoples. For all those peoples whom we are accustomed, rightfully and deservedly, to call Barbarians, and who, bringing slaughter and death upon the whole of Europe, completely overturned the Roman Empire, sprang forth from the borders of Scythia. For from there the Alans and Vandals and Gepids and Goths and Slavs and Bulgars and Huns and Avars and Turks and other plagues broke forth, drawn by the kindness of a milder climate to invade first the neighboring regions, and then even those situated furthest away, laying everything waste, seizing the property of others, imposing new customs and laws everywhere, and ruling most unjustly in places occupied by no right. B Those Eastern parts which obeyed the Roman emperors were the first of all to feel such slaughter and destruction; for an approach could not have been open to us from anywhere else, nor, if the Romans' strength had sufficed for resistance, would such a deluge of evils have been directed at us. Furthermore, if credence is to be given to Ammianus Marcellinus, XXXI, 1, this great and most sorrowful event had been foretold by presages and portents: for when Valens held the empire, and ill-omened things were portended everywhere, certain Greek verses were even found near Chalcedon, inscribed on a square stone, clearly revealing things to come, which it is worthwhile to relate so that light may be shed upon this little poem.
*At the time when the nymphs shall lead liquid dances in the city,* *And shall leap up joyfully through the streets, happy and bright,* *And a grievous wall shall be the defense of the baths,* *Then shall countless Hunnish tribes, sprung from various peoples,* *Cross the beautiful streams of the Ister river,* *And shall lay waste the Moesian fields and the lands of the Scythians.* *But when they shall have reached Pannonia, preparing greater things,* *There shall fate and the violence of Mars halt them.*
Thus did the most learned Henri de Valois elegantly render the Greek verses, though we departed from him in the reading of the fourth line, because, according to the faith of the manuscript codices which he himself praises, we thought one should read *dē tote Ounia phyla* (then the Hunnish tribes). But he, thinking that Goths and not Huns were being discussed here, rejected *Ounia*, and restoring *myria phyla* (ten thousand tribes) from Socrates and Zonaras, preferred to translate it "then the strong peoples," etc. But who...
MONITORIUM
A regarding the Avar War. B C DValesius, having been deceived, will deny it, and there, contrary to what he himself supposed, he will not deny that the discourse is regarding the Huns, not the Goths, if he reflects upon Ammianus himself who, as if he were interpreting a Greek inscription, immediately adds: "The race of the Huns, lightly known through ancient monuments, dwelling beyond the Maeotic marshes near the frozen Ocean, exceeds every measure of ferocity." But who is ignorant that the Huns, or Chuns, or Thynni—which names signify the same thing—were the collective name for all those peoples who, at various intervals of time, poured themselves into Europe in swarms; just as, in days of old, the Scythians were all called by one name, so later were all these same people called Huns? A witness to this fact is Agathias, in his *On the Reign of Justinian*, book V, who, after having asserted that the Huns and other barbarian nations, whose names were various, had lived around the Maeotic marsh, says: "These all together were commonly called Scythians and Huns." We gather from histories that the Huns attempted to break into Roman territory three times, and it is reported by many writers that they finally settled in Pannonia, which was later called Hungary by them. Orosius, in *History against the Pagans*, book VII, in the account of Valens, records that the first eruption of the Huns occurred in the 13th year of the reign of Valens, in the year of Christ 376. But the damages that followed from it are narrated, besides by Orosius, by the author of the *Historia Miscella*, book XII, regarding Gratian; St. Jerome, in his *Epistle for the Epitaph of Fabiola*; Philostorgius, IX, 17; Priscus, in the *Excerpta de legationibus*, p. 47, and others, who all called these Barbarians who left Scythia for the great ruin of Europe "Huns." A second migration of the same nation into neighboring regions followed during the reign of Justinian, namely in the year of Christ 564. And at that time indeed the peoples who, having been stirred up for a common destruction, brought so many evils upon Roman affairs were called Avars and Avar Huns. Theophanes, under the year 787, Ado of Vienne in the year 879, Aimo of Fleury, and Sigebert in their *Chronicles* bear witness to this, for they all confuse the Avars with the Huns and openly testify that they were called both Huns and Avars. Some, seeking the etymology of the name from the Hebrew language, have wished "Abar" to mean the same as if one were to say they were wanderers, vagabonds, and nomads, moving to and fro. Others contend that certain Huns were distinguished by the name of Avar because they surpassed the rest in bodily strength and fortitude of mind, as if one were to call them robust, strong, and well-disposed men. But Theophylact Simocatta, VII, 8, seems to prove the primary origin of the name, saying that those Huns who had fled into Europe after the others were content with the appellation of Avar: "For it is said that among the Scythian nations the tribe of the Avars is the most agile." The leader of these, moreover, was called Chagan, and the same Simocatta also testifies that these same Huns called themselves Avars, and for the sake of honor named their prince Chagan: "They, having named themselves Avars, adorn their leader with the title of Chagan." Finally, in the years of Christ 888 and 889, the Huns, summoned by the Emperor of the West Arnulf against the Moravian King Svatopluk, and invited by Leo the Philosopher, Emperor of the East, against the Bulgarians, gladly gathered from all sides with their forces in the number of many thousands, ready to bring aid: but, having seized the occasion, they occupied the whole of Pannonia, which subsequently attained the name of Hungary. Regarding this third arrival of the Huns, it is better to read Regino, Abbot of Prüm, in his *Chronicle*, book I; Liutprand, *History of European Affairs*, book I; the *Annals of Fulda*, Vol. II of the *Scriptores rerum Germanicarum*, year 892; Cedrenus, in his *Compendium of History*; Sigebert, in his *Chronicle* at the year 903; Johann Aventinus, *Annals of the Boii*, book IV; Aeneas Silvius, who later was Pope Pius II, in his *History of the Second Part of Asia*, and others who recount the ferocity and cruelty of the nation and at the same time denounce them: for as for us, since we are only speaking here of the second incursion of the Huns, Pisida warns us of this, for he describes the horrendous crime which the Avars had conceived in their minds in the year of Christ 626 to destroy Constantinople in not un-elegant verses. But since all those things which ought now to be said about the Avars can be referred more conveniently in the notes to the individual verses, we consider that we must refrain from a superfluous task here. Therefore, let it suffice to have briefly indicated the origin of the Avars; and if anyone wishes to learn more, let him approach the *Origines Hungaricae* of Francis Foris Otrokocsi, in which book the matters of the Huns and Avars are treated with the greatest abundance of learning. As for what pertains to the present poem, it is easily discerned that it is inscribed to Patriarch Sergius: for right at the beginning Pisida offers this work—whatever it is—to him (v. 12), and then constantly addresses him. That the Virgin Deipara (Mother of God) was the supreme leader of the war is clear from the very first verses and others interwoven into the work: for indeed it is through her help that Constantinople was truly liberated from the incursion of the enemies, as all the Byzantine writers testify together with Pisida, who represents her alone as fighting against the Avars. But he also commends Sergius himself everywhere as another most excellent leader of the war, yet one who played the second part, and who would not fight except with prayer and tears, and who administered the whole military matter under the nod, help, and counsel of the Virgin Mother of God (v. 230). Therefore, from the beginning up to v. 125, the origin, fierce customs, and frauds of the Avars are narrated: then Pisida begins the Avar war itself, and having made an invocation to Sergius, he runs much into his praises, saying, v. 130: "He who does all things." And certainly not undeservedly would our George have attributed much in this matter to Sergius, if he had known how to keep a measure: for it is certain that Emperor Heraclius, when he went away to fight against Chosroes, left the city entrusted to the guardianship of Sergius along with his sons; a witness to which fact is, besides others, Patriarch Nicephorus in his *History*, p. 11. Heraclius, with the Persians and Avars attacking at the same time, when the republic was pressed at once by famine and pestilence, "called upon Sergius, the presiding officer of the city, and also the archons and the rest of the body of the people, and entrusted to them his children, and put Bonus the patrician in charge of the administration of affairs." But Pisida, regarding that which was indeed accomplished by the help and virtue of many, wished to refer it all to the piety of Sergius, so that it might be evident that only by his groaning and the protection of the Virgin Mother of God, and with no human forces assisting, was the city saved and the victory obtained.
BY THE SAME AUTHOR ON THE INCURSION OF THE BARBARIANS AND THEIR FAILURE, THAT IS TO SAY, AN ACCOUNT OF THE WAR WHICH TOOK PLACE AT THE WALLS OF CONSTANTINOPLE BETWEEN THE AVARS AND THE CITIZENS.
Were some painter to wish to set before his eyes the trophies of the battle, let him set forth only the Virgin who gave birth without seed, and paint the image. For she alone knows how to conquer nature, first by birth-giving A and second by battle. For it was fitting that she, just as then without seed, so now without arms, should bring forth salvation, so that through both she might be found to be a virgin, and equally remain intact in war as in childbirth. (10) I, however, having gathered a few words like roses from the thorns of the battle, between the struggles, have chosen it as advantageous to offer these to you, the planter of wise words, so that long time may not obliterate from those after us (15) the movements of the wonders wrought among us. Now, indeed, like base-born offshoots,
wild branches severed from the Turks, and planted among our most noble regions as if they were leaves added to a plant, they grew fruits in the cultivated plants, nursing a savage nature. But when the root of the branches extended [H] itself and seized the mountains of the land, and it became a forest of many Barbarians, the harm was not tolerable to the neighboring inhabitants; but, just as torches falling upon the earth, that flame kindled from that race consumed the delightful bloom of the places. Nevertheless, the Ister, neighbor to the sea, A was barely able to contain such great savageness as a fluid barrier and a new wall. For the waves stood against them as a wall, and a fence standing against their ever-roving nature. For a while, therefore, the stream, by an unwritten decree, fixed the boundaries as it stood between them, and [how great a harm] to the commonweal [afterwards... B
VARIAE LECTIONES
21 ἀποστρέφοντας P. 30 παντογείτων PV cum ed.NOTAE
Not even excepting the Turks: for Theophanes is a witness, who, p. 207, says thus: The same are those whom Procopius calls Huns, Sabiroi, and Abasgoi, *De bello Goth.* IV, 3; Menander Protector, *De legat. Justini*, pag. 151, Turcas; and Theophylact Simocatta [VII], 8, call them Sabiros and Abares. And Evagrius indeed, whose authority is to be valued most highly, because he is a writer of that century, openly hands down that the Abares were separated from the Turks, book V: Simocatta relates similar things to Evagrius, book VII, 7. Therefore, Pisidas rightly calls the Abares "cut off" in contempt: for the metaphor is taken from the amputation of trees, which he pursues at length, saying that the Abares were plucked and cut off from the Turks like ignoble and useless branches. Henri Estienne in *Thes. linguae Gr.*, having noticed the word "plucked" being said by Suidas, [and] elsewhere "eunuchs" or "castrated," rightly conjectured the word to be of the feminine gender, which is evident from the following verse [67], in which the Abares are called, as it were, the root of a plucked shoot.18. Being driven away from the Turks, when they had reached the Danube, they were summoned as auxiliaries by the Emperor Justinian against other barbarian peoples, and were received into the borders of the Roman jurisdiction and honored with huge gifts. Menander Protector relates this more fully among the *Excerpta legat.*, p. 99; Theophanes, p. 143, and from him Anastasius, *Hist. Eccl.* to the year of Justin [the Younger] the third. But when they had once settled there, there was no longer any power for the Roman emperors to cast them out. Corippus Africanus, in *De laud. Just. min.*, book II, introduces the Avar envoy boasting many things, and asking for the gifts that were accustomed to be given to him by Justinian, and Justin replying angrily to the envoy speaking haughtily. Indeed, Justin spoke thus when he was first raised to the empire, not being confident that he could drive the Abares from the Roman jurisdiction by his own strength: but later it is certain from all histories that he also, though unwilling, joined pacts with the hated Barbarian.
25. Namely, that they had stationed themselves at the banks of the Danube, as stated above v, 10.
25. When the Abares had first reached the river, they had sworn that they would not cross on this side of the Ister, and the Romans had promised that they would not go across the Ister against them. But there was no fidelity in the Barbarians; whence so many dissensions and wars arose between both, and the greatest losses were inflicted upon the Romans. Francis Foris Otrokocsi, whom we praised in our *Monitum*, is indeed too excessive in Part I, cap. 5 of his *Originum Ungaric.* in defending the Huns, whom, so that he might free them from all stigma, he makes the Romans oath-breakers, although it is well-known that they broke into foreign jurisdiction by no right, and not once violated oaths and pacts with evil guile, which is more clearly evident from those things which happened under the Emperor Heraclius.
50. The Ister or Danube is called "neighbor to everything," which by its course seemed to delineate the boundaries of the Roman empire toward the northern part.
54. Since Pisidas clearly observed that the Ister was a light guard and bulwark against the Barbarians, it seems to me to indicate how the Abares crossed the river. Indeed, as I conjecture from his words, I think this was done in the time of winter, when the Danube was bound by ice. Indeed, Philostorgius relates that such an event occurred in the time of Arcadius, to which time Pisidas perhaps refers, book II: [...] And by a similar process, the Abares themselves boast at Corippus, book III, that they penetrated into Europe. Hence Pisidas, I think, poetically reproaches the Danube itself, because, contrary to what was sanctioned, it bound together with frost the boundaries which it ought to have divided with its bed.
A From the lawless Barbarians it arose; While they desired to unsettle the fixed boundaries, And the Roman power 40 Prevented their entries against us, This was clearly written before for others, As time moving alongside showed 45 The suspicion of those who had arrived, in security. But I, having encountered recent times, Lay hold of matters firsthand, If some divine grace would grant us, 50 Given the immeasurability of such deeds, To provide a robe of technical proportion. Scarcely, then, was the uncontainable and life-destroying dragon extinguished 55 Of the tyranny, which led many to the harming of necks— That hydra of which more is spoken— Which even now, though cut, quiver And sprout again; for the ichors, again 60 Dripping, are in labor with the common harm, And this, though many have been often cut By the pious Heraclius among us. Yet this cause, the infirmity B Which had overcome our affairs, Produced many divisions of the parts,
[alt-version omitted]
[index: entries preserved]
and the whole body was nourished by labors, befouled with its own blood. Hence the Barbarians, like bees, encircling us around, like gnats, A had full zeal to uproot the city, and first indeed the thriving city, as the foremost of cities. For as long as the root of the offshoot, in the places of the Scythians that had been snatched away, nurtured the boldness of the old man, the city bore its burden by necessity; but that which caused pain seemed defined. For the weight of the injury is lightened if one knows a measure has been set upon the evils. Thus, then, we held the appointed burden, so long as old age held the Scythian in check. But when the dust raised the earth B and he journeyed toward the house of burial, drawing the earth, he was drawn from it; the branch of the fallen man descended once more into the savage life of cruelty. For nature knows how to run backward, like the Euripus, into its own channels, even if some force compels it to flow against itself. Hence, what speech will suffice for us, or what tension of voice, or ten-tongued mouth, through which I might tell of the strange-seeded monster, the intractable offspring of the old man? Or shall I call him a thunderbolt, or a living storm, whose tongue is stunted, and his spirit bitter, and his speech befouled, and his hands mindlessly groping for the sword?
A Or does wrath rush toward the remembrance of drunkenness? For what labor, or for the sake of love of riches, did the Master, who does all things for our benefit, omit or defer, wishing to soften that intractable nature by the calculation of reason or the promise of gifts, persuading with the first, and with words the second? And what lyre of the tongue did He not move, tuned by His own musical skill, which often persuades even wild beasts, and softens even the common audacity? 105 One who had acquired tens of thousands of Orpheuses would not soften them, for it is more difficult to tame man than to soften wild beasts.
A Nevertheless, the barbarian mind prevailed by the judgment of the worse, having gained a wicked victory; for while He sought to cleanse its blackened heart 110 from hostile deeds, it in turn became a double Ethiopian. But since the fox at last assumed its deceits, having put on evil faith, 115 outwardly indeed fashioning a face of peace, but inwardly raving so as to steal a battle, it came toward the wall as if for negotiations, to cover the deceit with sworn arts; and for him there were ready bows and battle, 120 but for us gifts and words of peace. It was not the barbarian deceit that conquered us, but the sin that is innate in us.
However, one must be silent about most of the suffering; for suffering knows how to wound even when it is spoken of. 125 But I shall proceed henceforth to the trophies of the recent battle, and my words, finding aid in your prayer once again, as in a familiar and tranquil harbor, are carried A toward you, like a vessel that speaks, O you who do everything so that your soul might never pass on barren, but always sowing, and bearing children to God daily, remaining a virgin, and yet remaining a mother even more! For now you are bringing everyone to birth alone, and every land and city is wrapped in swaddling clothes by you, this city alone having been saved by God through you. Hail, leader of practical vigilance! For you, standing with a ready heart, silent in speech, were yet speaking; and your very stance became an immediate downfall for the enemy. Hail, leader of the armed tears, which incinerate the barbarian insolence! For to the extent that you spread the streams of your eyes, so much do you check the streams of blood.
A For seeing our thorny growths, from the fruitless wickedness of our sins, already hastening toward burning and corruption, you forestall the fire, as if it were lit against brushwood, and, as against trees, placed for felling; but by opening the fountains of your eyes, you water the parched parts and sprinkle the flame. And you brought about that fruitless hearts should bring forth fruits from a strange rainfall. For you knew, you knew, as one who cultivates the mind, that a heart cannot bring forth [fruit] unless it be first cleansed like a vine, and then pour forth dense tears; and so, finally, one might invite the grapes. Yet, not even of this is the fruitlessness complete, B until the new shoot has taken in the sun, and nothing raw is found on the vine. But the fervor of your faith compelled us, even before the usual grapes could grow, to bring forth ripe fruits. 165 I wish now to tell of the causes of these words for you, according to the battle that recently occurred.
A But I am constrained by the recent fear, and I am compelled to say nothing, as I wish. Yet the Word, who is the painter of all things, will harmonize even these matters with technical measures, as a practitioner and calligrapher of every work. The surging tempest of the adversaries came upon us like measureless waves, casting forth the sand of the Barbarians. 175 For the evil blast of all Thrace, a winter gathered from many clouds, stirred up against us from necessity in the summer. But when at last the heat of the spirit advanced near your ship, and danger was suspended on every side (for the whole circuit of the vessel was being submerged), you yourself, standing by all who were sailing on it, B and stretching your neck fervently upward, exhorted everyone that, because of sin, they should not drag along the fleet as something useless, but that each should cast out from his heart the burdens of redundant loads, lest the worldly ship, being dragged down by divine weight, should bring harm to life. 190 And doing these things during sleepless days (for did not every night possess the work of the day?), you alone turn such a savage cloud toward its own destruction. For the battle was not simple and solitary, but it leapt forth, mixed into manifold and complex C beginnings. For the Sthlab joined with the Hun, and the Scythian with the Bulgarian, and again the Mede conspired with the Scythian; having separations of languages and regions, and being distinct and joined from afar, they stirred up one battle against us, and they desired their own faithlessness to be held by us as a most accurate faith. Thence, indeed, the Scythian-nurturing Scylla was boiling severely, and from there the Charybdis of Persia was shouting back loudly. Between these, however, D [the rest of this page is apparatus]
unerring Orthia [the Upright One] and, stretching the white sails of thoughts, was sailing along with the ship that leads the world. And these things indeed were in regard to that maritime impulse, to show divine crafts; but since, finally, as the myths of old fashion the earth-born ones the false-sown, so the abyss of the earth fashioned the Barbarians, and toward the walls of the Hospital Gate a multitude approached, just as it had been conjectured, assembling sixty thousand, and there were present trumpets and arrows and swords, A fire and tortoises and hurling stones. And the machines and compositions of spurious towers, and the salvation was to all incredible—so much, in our eyes, did you yourself possess the hope that was tightening our fortune upon the sphere. But I, wishing to veil these things for you (for I was not unaware that even now you wish to remain hidden), was intending to keep silent; but my mind blushed to steal away things of which it sees others are aware. Therefore, bear with me; for it is difficult, and rightly so, to cover up and hide a common suspicion. For you had, you had the Virgin thinking with you, who was directing your future from the goal. By having her as a shield-bearer by custom, A and the towers were wooden and the tortoises were the devices.
[VARIARUM LECTIONUM ET NOTARUM EXCERPTA] [NOTES] 209. He means the Virgin Mother of God, whom Sergius, as will soon appear, had as a most excellent helper in the war. He calls her "not-wandering" [un-erring] so as to contrast her with the wandering or seducing devil. He says that Sergius draws the Virgin by prayers, just as poets formerly said that magicians could summon the moon from the sky with their incantations. 213. Pisida attributes a great deal to the prayers of Sergius in repelling the attempts of the Barbarians. The historians often praised testify to that one thing: that the city was preserved by the Virgin Mother of God. Sergius ordered public supplications, and holding first the image of the most blessed Virgin, then that of our Savior Jesus Christ, he went around the walls of the city accompanied by the entire populace; the twofold narrations concerning the Avar war, which we have deemed worth the effort to append to these annotations, confirm this. These are therefore the divine crafts which Pisida commends. He indicates the first supplication indeed made with the icon of the Virgin Mother of God, and for this reason he recently said "drawing the Orthia [Upright] one." 215. The poets said that giants were the sons of the Earth. Ovid, Fast. v. 35. Pisida confirms the opinion of those who think that those called giants were earth-born. 216. See supra v. 76. 219. "Myriarchy" is a command of ten thousand. And so, if you hear Pisida, eighty thousand Barbarians attacked Constantinople. 222. He calls them "wooden towers." 225. "That our fortune should stand with a firm foot," and should not turn its back to us. See *De vanit. vitæ*, v. 15 et seqq. 227. See *Hexaem.*, v. 1889. 231. Seems to be used in almost the same sense as "auto-vision" [self-viewing or internal sight], as above, v. 43. [index: entries preserved]
A You waged war from an immaterial heart, using instruments of battle counter to those of your adversaries. For you held the hope of God as a bow, moving swifter than the speed of lightning; for towers you had faith, for arrows you had tears, 240 B and for fire, the Spirit. You devised "tortoises" by bending your knee and bowing your neck, and by sending back your sighs like stones, you repelled the stone-throwers of the Barbarians. And these things, shortly after, 245 again had a more manifest success against the enemies. Yet your most sharp-witted nature did not overlook that the Sovereign, though absent, was present to the labors; he was as near to those who were troubled as he was far removed in physical distance. 250 While waging war against the lawless Persis, and devoting his mind to impossible exertions—which not even the winter, possessing a scorching heat, could persuade to grant a respite to the struggles— A nor did the desire of his mother weaken his resolve, or grant a small delay of time. Nor did the innate force of such many children draw him away, nor did the struggle of his body deem it worthy to find a relief from the labors. But ceaselessly in the midst of the Barbarians, like a rose entangled in thorns, and while already stirring up the Persian war for us, he was again waging a spiritual war for our sake. And being straitened by the assaults on both sides, 260 having let go of what was near, he held the struggle far away. Thence, by the flow of letters, he stoked us up, like a fire that compels the idle fuel to be kindled into a flame, B often commanding us to make secure the foundations against the wall, as was necessary, to build detached turrets, to make barricades, and to set up stakes set fast in the ground, and to weave a new wall, and to make many [provisions for] archers and for stones.
VARIÆ LECTIONES. 274. *πλοκάς* P.
NOTÆ. 256. Compare the following verses with the iambics of the *Hexaemeron*. 243. *Πετροπομπούς*, stone-throwers, *πέτρα* and *πέμπω*. 245. That the poet alone reveals that the Emperor took thought concerning the Avaric war while Chosroes was fighting him is evident from v. 566. 250. Theophanes and Nicephorus agree with our poet in dating the epoch of this Avaric war. For all testify that this happened in the 12th year of Heraclius. Heraclius, however, set out for Asia in the 12th year of his reign, in the month of March according to Theophanes, or in April according to the *Chronicon Paschale*. But the Avaric war took place in the month of July three years later; therefore, if you calculate the time from the departure of Heraclius from the city, you will find that Pisida, who affirms that the Emperor had already spent three years in Persis, spoke correctly. 255. He calls the burning winter "hyperbolic," meaning that Heraclius had penetrated as far as the middle or torrid zone, which the ancients thought uninhabitable from excessive heat; this is expressed more clearly in *Heracliad* 1, 156. 258. There were several children by Eudocia (who was called Epiphania). She was living in Constantinople when Heraclius, the son of Heraclius, first came from Africa to Byzantium to oust the tyrant Phocas from the kingdom. Phocas, however, enclosed the mother [of Heraclius] together with Eudocia, the wife of Heraclius, in the imperial monastery of the New Penitence, to be diligently guarded. Nevertheless, Pisida warns us that Epiphania lived for many more years. Similar verses can be read in *Heracliad* 1, and *De exped.* 11, 126. 266. There is no mention of these letters among other historians. 273. It was among the walls that were called the New Wall. That it is the same as the Theodosiac, because it was built by Theodosius the Younger and subsequently restored many times, is suggested by the *Chronicon Paschale* (col. 1006), which narrates that upon the arrival of the Chagan, the horsemen and foot soldiers...
were ready, and he was not remiss in assembling the armed vessels, which he had long since ensured should be prepared. Since he did not wish to see the face of battle, he took the necessity of war as a given; 280 and he sent a multitude of soldiers in good time, little concerned with his own safety, deeming the only sure salvation to be the preservation of the common good from all harm. He brought almost all his own anxieties 285 to bear on the one concern for us, regarding it as a peril to his own soul if he did not undergo every danger for our sake. Thus, whether commanding or writing, he would individually set out the matters with his word, and though absent, he depicted the affairs of battle, 290 ordering, directing, and prescribing the engines with a subtle and skillful mind. Nor were his mandates neglected; rather, what was written was accomplished in action, 295 as everyone eagerly—both citizens and strangers, and those A in the first and greatest offices—rushed to undertake their voluntary labors. For it was necessary, I think, for such a master to have such servants in an emergency, who, having learned his wise counsels, demonstrated his words through their deeds. Thus, the master, ever restless 300 in the speed of his deliberations and the unquenchable nature of his mind, stood near the city even while far away, and by his providence was present everywhere alone, as a single intellect sufficient for all. However, master, the abundance of your labors 305 must be kept for a more suitable time, when, with peace appearing, a second voyage through the sea of eloquence will be made in our midst. B Since, however, the circumstance held a dreadful fear as it gazed upon the waves of battle, it seemed best to the leaders and to the subjects, and to the master of the armed regiments—(for they were always linked to you in every respect)—that they should enter within the new Theodosian wall 315 of this imperial city. In the fifteenth year of the reign of Heraclius, the wall outside the Blachernae was built.
[They] bore the common labors with you, running daily like travelers, and standing by in the manifold battle with the arms of counsel and military vigils; A (even though these suffered not for a year—which act most of all makes labors [into] toils for those to whom toil in battle does not occur)—yet it seemed to all that men outstanding in act and speech should be sent to the Barbarians, B (325) those who would pour forth much harmony from their mouths, making announcement to dissolve the battle and to set an end to common cares.
While these things were being moved tactically among us, the Persian pride again sends, with deceit, thieves of the sea as messengers, hastening to whet the barbarian sword against us just like a sharpened blade. (330) But when the messengers sent from here and there having gathered from uncertainty met at one place, the Barbarian, having received such envoys together and being puffed up with arrogance, joined both [parties]—this, for the sake of glory, but most of all wishing to strike terror into us. C For the Persian servant 340 kindled the anger of the Barbarian like fire from fire, and promised a thousand allies, and disparaged us with terrible words, and, having gathered together, he twisted for the Barbarian armed maxims and sharpened speeches. Being led away by these speeches, the tyrant of the Scythians—the first ruin—was delighted. D Yet the safe weigher of all things 350 turns even this very plan, contrary to expectation, into his ruin. For it was fitting that he should cloak the deceit and in silence hide the stealthily sent messengers; but he makes the hidden manifest, and becomes a counselor who is an enemy, and an accuser who is a friend. (355) For when the well-sent messengers arrived, having said that the purpose of Sarbarus was not by any means to have speech for peace, and that the Persian deceit could not be escaped, the gate of the sea is guarded.
Having closed the entrances with the methods of display, A the thefts are quickly captured, and the light of day has risen upon the work of the night. For the Persian and the Barbarian race had a common grief from a single cause, expecting the messengers who might return the exchange. 565 And when at last the mistress of the war came to the divinely written judgment, you labor again; for you were not appointed a proclaimer of the community without purpose, having arrived not without foresight. 570 And having quickly taken up the advocate’s plea, and having run to the wall of the trial, you safely set forth a writing against them—the terrible form of the unwritten writing. Anyone, I think, seeing this diagnosis, will say that you have suborned the judge by guile; 575 for having shown him to the enemies in his entirety, you raised up a fear opposite to them, and although the proofs had not yet been produced, B the trial became a clever one for them. How fortunate for you that your fine guile succeeded! For having judged within yourself, and having discerned the nature that, for a child, nothing is more sympathetic than a mother, you brought forward the Mother of the Judge with pity, prayer, tears, and fasting, 585 and from there and from here, having given and scattered many things, you persuade her first; and she immediately persuades her son, and almost before the trial, she announced the victorious judgment for us. 390 However, since the Barbarians thought to contend against the struggles of the battle, the whole place adorned before the wall was foolishly burned by the work of fire, and the flame smoke-blackened in a strange way—it was hidden by the thick darkness of a strange mist. 595 And for the Persians encamped on the other side, since the battle was in fact doing its work against us, their smoke became a herald of darkness. For there was a certain desire in both Barbarians, not...
that one might seize his weapons faster than the other, but who might first set fire to the innocent stones. And these things indeed went on in this manner. But now, as they were finally joining battle, the Barbarians, having seized the places of the judge and of the commander of the unchangeable Virgin, were holding them as if they were shields, and they thought to have those who were impiously insulted by them as allies in their necessity. The Barbarian mind, A having cast the multitudes of Sclaveni mixed with Bulgars into the transports (for, having carved them, he had hollowed-out boats), mixed the battle of the sea with the battle of the land.
And for me, too, confusion and conflict arose; and since there is such perturbation of the proposed subject, and it stirs up my words as if for battle, what shall I say first, and with what shall I begin? One man, then, was falling from the impact of a stone, having received the blow and his grave at the same time; another, deep in thought, while talking to his companion, was struck from above by an unseen archer, and gave up his spirit faster than his word. And someone among them, in the highest ranks, thinking to organize the regiments as was needed, stood having slipped in among the shields, hastening to hide himself safely. But the stroke of the swift stone, anticipating him, unexpectedly split the shields and drove them back violently; fear arose for him, while the others
like locusts, 430 were falling entirely, meeting with misfortune strategically. Thus did the divine judgment direct the bows, the bowmen, and the stones themselves, so that nothing cast fell in vain, but that which was sent arrived accurately 435 at the respective fate of those struck.
And these were the events of fortune; the back of the earth bore them easily. It was necessary, then, that the sea battles also receive an equal judgment. 440 And besides this, I am moved to wonder even more how the barbarians, looking upon the vast substance of the sea spread out, and thinking that they were being constricted by its breadth, were immediately shut in there where 445 the sovereign Virgin had her house. A For there, as in a net of hunting-nets, they joined their carved boats and spread them out. And when all together had inclined toward one another, they approached our ships with a shout. 450 From then on, the battle was hidden and yet manifest. For I think it was the one who gave birth without seed who bent the bows and threw the shield, and, mingling in the unseen conflicts, B was shooting, wounding, sending back the sword, 455 overturning and covering the boats, and giving the deep to all as a dwelling. For there is nothing strange if a Virgin wars, through whom there came into the soul's worship—I know not how—the sword having been sent again; 460 yet it passed through or went through quickly, wounding the nature that was nowhere else woundable. Thus, then, those carved boats had their anchorage by necessity in the storm; and much churning and fear and confusion 465 laid hold of the Barbarians as they fought at sea.
Some one of them, having fallen from the merchant-ship, would find himself swimming, inventing an art of survival; another, imitating a corpse in the water, hoped to escape, feigning strangulation. And some of them, in place of a tower, secretly ducked beneath the keel, and remaining there for a long time, endured their calamity out of necessity. Yet the surging swell of the sea overwhelmed them all, as if they were a single fleet. From that point, the Barbarian, who formerly breathed out flames in abundance and blew fire from his fire-casting words, was quickly scorched; and suddenly he became ashes, fitly so, just as the fire had burned innocent wood. For one was sending another as a messenger, bearing him calamities like sheaves, from land to sea, and from the sea B back to land again, a surge of misfortunes. Thus, then, he suffered a new surge, thinking his mind was being tossed by waves, even while on land; for the battle, clashing against the waves, arrived at one single current of misfortunes. For on the one side, the land, because of the unburied Barbarians, sprouted a forest more dense than that of trees, while on the other side, the sea, troubled and smoothed by the weight of the corpses, is reddened by the blood of the aliens. And now it is truly called Erythraean [the Red Sea], well-dyed by the dye of the Barbarians. For it was necessary, I think, that when it saw the second Pharaoh and you, a new Moses, it should depict the manifestations of the Red Sea; and now these also have the waves for tombs, watery monuments and Egyptian sepulchers. For it was not fitting to see this new vengeance as inferior to the old one. Let us therefore sing a hymn, not making a discordant noise with drums, but with organs mystically tuned for us within the heart. B And let us stretch the enlivened strings, and let our tongues be the plectra and our lips the cymbals, and let us lift up a song, the highest in the first mode, with the pentachord composition of the senses. For thus the sight, which comes from the eyes, shall clear away every harmful spectacle; and the intellectual gate of hearing shall not open its doors to disorderly sounds. Nor again shall the sense of smell, once deceived,
draw away the sweetness of a bitter pleasure; (515) and taste will not be the cause of corruption, but [is] prepared for incorruptible food. And with touch, free from grasping at fleeting things, we shall handle the Christ-brotherly limbs. So that He, the Architect of all substance, (520) the mighty support of things visible A and the stable foundation of things invisible, who usefully instructs nature and terrifies the foolish perturbation of our passions with the lash of a master, (525) may now also lead forth His radiant soldiers and set them against the darkling barbarians; and show the Tigris and the Ister’s flow, like the stream of the Nile of old, reddened with blood, so that the barbarian mind, unhappily having tasted the slaughter of relatives, (530) may be drunk with the blood of its own kin. And may He increase your pious plantation, O Master, who flourishing with divine tendrils; and may He open many doors to your words, while He yourself overcomes the barbarians on every side. (535) Here now for me the slow-tongued speech draws the conclusion of its purpose. But to your son, the pubescent majesty, I prepare to address these words: B Come forth, O victory; now it is permitted you to receive your bridegroom, to whom you have already given—as marriage gifts—the slaughter of the barbarians.
QUERCII’S MONITUM ON THE HERACLIAD
The inscription of the *Heracliad*, which Pisida placed upon this poem—comprised of only two *acroases*—appears at first glance to promise something truly great. For everyone will easily recall to mind the *Iliad* and the *Odyssey*, the *Aeneid* and the *Thebaid*, and other such poems of the Greeks and Latins, drawn out along a long thread. But I fear that anyone who, captivated by the breadth of the title, expects something similar from Pisida, may fall short of his hope, since neither the style of the writing, nor the majesty of the poetry, nor the gravity of the events which are narrated, will be found to answer sufficiently and equally to the preconceived opinion. But Pisida indeed, if I am not mistaken, inscribed so specious a title upon these C *acroases* of his for this reason: either because he wished to treat chiefly of the destruction of Chosroes—which was the greatest of all the deeds performed by Heraclius, as is manifest from the explanation of that same title—or because he had determined to touch upon and sketch out the individual deeds of the Emperor Heraclius, which he performed brilliantly after he had obtained the kingdom, as from the second [acroasis] it is most clearly evident: so that, whether he intended to make the end of the work... [index: entries preserved]
MONITUM QUERCII DE HERACLIADE
The argument of this present little poem, in which the life of Heraclius is summarized, is clearly evident from its presentation: so that whether you look at the end of the work or at the mind of the writer, whatever that work may ultimately be, it is not undeservedly distinguished by the title *Heracliad*. However, the poet does not relate to us very distinctly or clearly what relates specifically to the slaughter and death of Chosroes, although perhaps it was not possible for him to treat these same matters in any other way. For he is not taken on as a companion of the second expedition by Heraclius as he was of the first, nor was he sufficiently patient of delay to await the return of the emperor, from whom he could easily have learned how the events had transpired; rather, as soon as the first report of Chosroes’ death was brought to Constantinople, he was immediately filled with immense joy and, seized by poetic fury, poured out these iambics, as it appears, perhaps even sending them to Heraclius so that he might, in whatever manner he could, approach him, and that for an achievement so great and so successfully performed, he would be among those citizens expressing their gratitude.
This, indeed, I believe I can gather from those things that are read at the end of the first *acroasis*: for there, doubtful and hesitating as to what he should say first and what next, overwhelmed and pressed by the number and weight of the events, he decides that he must for the present abstain from describing the battles, until the emperor, having returned to Byzantium, might reveal the whole matter in order, just as it had happened, and, having removed the impediments to speaking, might stir the minds of the citizens to writing (v. 238). And from this also, as far as I can conjecture, it appears that Pisida, while writing these things, had even then thought of treating this subject more fully and better. But if he did think of it, he certainly postponed the matter to another, more convenient time. Whether he achieved what I conjecture to have been in his mind, I would not dare to affirm; although I believe he did, and because there are several fragments that certainly agree with this subject, but which you cannot comfortably attribute to this little poem. Of this matter, let the judgment be that of those who shall not find it burdensome to collect and weigh together the fragments of Pisida, which I have brought into one place at the end of the work.
Let it therefore be certain and firm that what is contained in these two *acroases* is an *epinikion* (victory poem) rather than an epic poem. The facts and the time support us. For, besides the fact that Pisida begins in such a way that you would think he is singing a hymn, he touches only very lightly upon those things that pertain to the direction and end of the expedition, and does so only in passing; he pours himself out entirely in commending the piety of Heraclius; and while you expect him to say something about the subject proposed, he seems to recoil as if terrified, and wanders off into recounting those things which the emperor had gloriously achieved before undertaking the expedition. He himself is a clear witness, saying in *acroasis* 1, 240:
"Yet with a reckless daring I spread out My mind, and swim upon the very deeds themselves."
Now, this was done because he applied his hand to this work with excessive anxiety—namely, as I firmly believe, shortly after there were "read (for I will use the words of the *Chronicon Paschale*, p. 727) the replies from the ambo in the most holy Church, sent from the Eastern parts by Heraclius the most pious emperor, declaring the fall of Chosroes and the proclamation of Siroes as king of the Persians." The author of the *Chronicon* exhibits Heraclius’ letters in the same place, with which nothing corresponds or coheres more aptly or better than the beginning and the end of the first *acroasis*, and likewise the conclusion of the second. You would say that Pisida replied to Heraclius in the name of the entire city. Therefore, if you listen to me, Pisida wrote these things at the end of the year of Christ 628, which falls in the 18th year of Heraclius’ reign: for at that time the citizens of Constantinople were made certain of Chosroes being first defeated by that same Heraclius and then killed by his son Siroes.
Would that what Pisida wrote in such a rapid and concise style he had explained at least more clearly and plainly: for I must confess that, had not Theophanes held up a torch everywhere, in many places the water would have stalled, as they say; for many things occur that are tortuous and entangled with allegories, the sense of which it will be evident to readers is not easy to grasp immediately.
HERACLIADOS ACR. I. OF THE SAME: HERACLIAS, OR RESPECTING THE FINAL DESTRUCTION OF CHOSROES, KING OF THE PERSIANS.
Let every chorus of the stars exult, Showing that the servant of the stars has fallen, And that he was ignorant of his own fall. For creation, being honored, did not cover him, Even though the Creator, being treated impiously, endured it. Now let the moon in its full radiance shine, As Chosroes ends, pledging A To the Persians henceforth not to deify creation. And now you, O thrice-great sphere of the sun, Having bathed yourself in the cleansing of the slaughter, Cry out, reveal to you the slaughter of Chosroes, Having escaped the profane suspicions of God. Exult, O ether; the one who held the Persians, The fire-worshipper, Chosroes, has been darkened. [I]
A 15 Again the Persian furnace, a second one, Is cooled; the flame for the second Daniel Is turned upwards, though such is not its nature, And flows against them, and pursues and consumes Those who had kindled the wicked flame. 20 Again the mouth of the maddened lions Was shut against you, Persian [fire]. Again Chosroes offends wickedly B And works with fire and imagines himself a God, Until the fire raging with him Was destroyed together with him who had worked with it. Again he offends, and unsettles creation, And rivals Xerxes of old, and desires Now to petrify the deep with corpses, 30 Now again to make the earth billow with gore. He acts the giant and wishes to play the tyrant,
A And he images Baltasar before them all, Polluting divine things with the defilement of drunkenness, Until the god-speaking finger against him, Using your right hand to write, 35 Pronounced the judgment of the black stone. Now the rains of blood cease, The stream of ceaseless slaughter flees; The earth is not troubled by violent graves, The sea is not stained by the shedding of gore. The tear of the captives does not flow; 40 The weaving of the noose now lies idle; No one, having drained soot with vinegar, Forces his mouth to act as his nose. The trees are not weighed down by the burden of corpses. Each of the limbs is complete in its joints; 45 No one, footless or handless, weighs down his neck; No one borrows the hand, helper of the feet, To compensate for the inverse calamity. But heaven, earth, fire, water, air, clouds, 50 And every creature of those above and below, Applause with us for the arena of God, One having fallen and all being saved. Now Chosroes knows the fiery-beamed one is Lucifer, And he has no wandering ones.
VARIAE LECTIONES
47 ἀγχυστρόφου: P[...]NOTAE
[...] brodo, whose force of name they say is such that it signifies an idolatrous tyrant and giant. Pisida clearly, following the version, says of Chosroes *yigas* (giant). For where the Vulgate Gen. x, 8 has "Nimrod began to be mighty on the earth," the Seventy Translators have *yigas*. This trimeter is cited by Suidas in v. *Gigante*. 31. Rightly does he say that King Baltasar of Babylon, before all others, was imitated by the earthly tyrant Chosroes: for as the former was not ashamed to contaminate during his banquet the vessels taken from the temple of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, so Chosroes profaned the wood of the Holy Cross, which he snatched from the same temple and took away with him with an infinite number of captives. 52. As to what he understands by *those divine things*, see *Exped.* II, 107 and following. 53. *Dan.* V, 5. 55. Suidas has this iambic in v. *psephos*; similar to this is [v.] 385 of *Bell. Abar.* 56. He enumerates the various kinds of tortures with which Chosroes punished the Romans, designating him as the tyrant and the Christians as the martyrs. 38. Compare this and the following trimeter with v. 487 and following of *Bell. Abar.* 40. For when he had composed peace with Heraclius, he delivered up all, as Theophanes has (p. 272), those in prisons [who were] Christians and those who were captives in all Persia, along with the Patriarch Zacharias, together with the precious and life-giving wood taken from Jerusalem. 41. Regarding the various kinds of torments which Pisida poetically describes, consult Gallonius on the tortures of the SS. martyrs (p. 16): for the poet seems to represent the Roman martyrs suspended by the noose and killed by the Persians, who without doubt had S. Anastasius the Persian and his seventy companion martyrs in his eyes while he was writing these things. 42. That he was accustomed to inflict a certain punishment upon servants, Aristophanes is witness (B*arp.* 633). For there he elegantly enumerates various species of tortures. But Pisida hands down that soot was thrust through the nostrils by the Persians with vinegar, so that he might show that he was more cruel to Christians than was wont to happen to slaves. 45. Rotis, the *trocheus*, and other instruments: the bodies of the martyrs were tortured, stretched, and dismembered. See Gallonius, p. 33. 46. Suidas cites this verse with the previous one in v. *acheiros*, and warns that the poet is speaking of Chosroes' cruelty. But no variation occurs, except that in Suidas the one that is second in Pisida is to be read first. Kuster wrongly thought that *où barei* should be replaced, as it is quite repugnant to the meter and sense. Nor would I approve more of what pleased the same Kuster, that in the verse above we should read *hekaston* against the faith of the codices. 51. *Scammata* are lines or boundaries, designated as the ditches of the earth, within which they contended in the circus; hence that proverb "leaping over the *scammata*." We preferred to retain the Greek word by the example of others rather than use another which might not express the force of the word. Pisida, as it seems, introduces Heraclius and Chosroes contending in the most spacious theater of the world, makes heaven and earth the spectators, and establishes God as judge and arbiter, by whose kindness and favor it came to pass that Chosroes, rushing with excessive temerity and contending to transgress the boundaries, fell headlong into the *scammata*, into the ditches, and all the rest attained the crown of salvation and victory. That this is the allegorical meaning proposed to us, besides what follows, makes us believe the word *krotein*, which is always found used to express the applause by which victorious athletes were received by spectators. But if you dismiss the allegory, the *scammata* of God were the divine counsels and judgments, or the ends established by Him in a way entirely different than the insane Chosroes had reckoned with himself: for the counsel of Chosroes was that all the Romans should perish, but the counsel of God was that one, Chosroes, should perish and all the Romans should be saved, and I am led into error; whence he cleverly says of Chosroes,A the seven, he says, or rather all the stars. Now, having fallen into Tartarus, he sees them all, Darkened by necessity, as evangels of night, And having missed the hope he placed in them, Those he honored while living, he now buries in impiety. 60 Where now is the prattle of the infallible Magi? Where are the stages of their mysteries among the stars? Who now looks upon the fallen Chosroes? He certainly seemed to fall by the timing of fate. 65 For by the impulses of his own child was the destroyer slain. O Homer, do not rashly deem the Hercules of old Dignified enough to be called a god. For what good did the slaughtered boar or the throttled lion Bring to the common life of men? Marvel rather, as one among men, 70 At the world-establisher, the rightly named Hercules. He it was who went down to the very gates of Hades, He strangled the madness of the all-devouring hound.
A He raised up Alcestis for the inhabited world; He destroyed the murder-guilty serpent, He brought down the many-necked pest, the Hydra; He cleansed the life that had been defiled by filth; 75 He strangled the world-destroying lion. And now Heraclius has emerged in deed, Having taken the golden apples, the cities entire. The land of the darkling sunset has passed away; The light has stood firm, and the darkness has departed; 80 And now a second life is being fashioned, And another world and a newer creation. And now the Noah of the new inhabited world Has found as an ark his own heart, And having placed all nature within, 85 He let it loose into the armed ranks, Guarded amidst the deluge of Chosroes; For, one may almost say, all flesh was corrupted Through the poured-out, all-generative sin; Until, having taken the branch of the olive B of mercy, 90 He saved the remnants of life. Where now is Apelles, where is the orator Demosthenes, That the one, having embodied your labors, And the other, having tuned the nerves of your thoughts, Might raise up your image, endowed with soul? 95 Scipio, be silent; for a law has been written To call those who conquer the "Heraclians."
"»
A common decree; now safely alone 400 It is permitted for slaves to legislate for masters. Confirm, O most mighty, the law with your seal. You have a conscience; you have no suspicion. You have countless arrows testifying for you, You have your wounds as innate allies, 405 You have struggles as eloquent advocates, You have struggles as noble stenographers, Who will write the law, not with base ink, But with red letters, as is fitting; 110 For your blood will suffice for the scribes. Plutarch, be silent, writing your parallels. Why do you labor so much and collect generals? Describe the sovereign, and you write them all. For already Plutarch, wishing to exalt A The son of Philip and snatch him to the heights, 115 Strives to show to all that he was possessed B By conflicting fortunes that opposed him: He was not unaware of the difference between the titles of emperor and despot, which point to the fact that the former denotes royal dignity, the latter power over subject peoples. Thus our author in *De expeditione* (II, 99) depicts Heraclius speaking of God in this way: "He is the common King and Despot." Moreover, he clearly declares the force of the word "despot" here, when he says that it is permitted for slaves to set a law toward despots; by these words, he denotes the proper relationship which a prince, as lord or despot, has toward his slaves.
101. Whether Heraclius confirmed the decree, it is not clear. *Tupos* used to be said of the constitutions and decrees of princes: but here *tupos* is a mark of approval, or a royal subscription. See Ducange, *Lexicon Graecum*, v. *typos*.
102. The codex had *syneidos* [conscience], as written above, which is certain to be retained.
104. That Heraclius was wounded at the river Sarum, the witness is Theophanes, p. 263. See *Poem on the Resurrection*, 116.
106. Regarding the *tachygraphoi*, so called from their swift writing, who were also called *oxygraphoi* in the same sense, see Montfaucon, *Palaeographia Graeca*, lib. I, c. 5. These were scribes from the number of notaries designated to copy out the letters and decrees of the emperors with a swift pen.
107. By "base writing," [the author] understands, I think, fictitious colors, which scribes were accustomed to use in drafting books, namely ink and other mixtures of this kind, as is in Pliny, lib. XXXV, p. 687. C For Pisida, openly alluding to imperial superscriptions—which they used to write in minium, cinnabar, and sacred encaustic—opposes to these fictitious colors the one thing, blood, than which there is clearly no color more sincere.
108. Regarding the red, purple, and gold colors accustomed to be employed for imperial laws, the recently lauded Montfaucon (lib. I, c. 1) says these colors were reserved for the use of the emperors. And such was the reverence of the Byzantine citizens toward those same emperors, even in the smallest matters, that there was a certain nobleman who kept the *canicleum*, that is, the vessel in which the sacred encaustic was contained, and who was called the *kanikleios*, prefect of the canicleum. D
110. "Parallel," that is, the *Lives*, a work clearly precious.
115. Heraclius, wishing to bring all the ancient generals to bear, accuses Plutarch, because in writing the *Life of Alexander* he attributed very much to his virtue, and very little to fortune. There exist among the minor works of this greatest author two orations under this title: *On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander*, which it will not repent him to have read who wishes to know how ingeniously a Greek man follows the praises of a Greek prince.
He hastened to show to all how adverse A fortunes were holding him back; for he did not ignore, being a clever writer, that if he were to record him as fortunate, he would be bestowing the victory upon Fortune instead of him. Yet your general, O Plutarch, possessed something greater than Fortune: his courageous fellow-soldiers. For who was it that persuaded an army full of Persian terror (to whom flight by custom was a battle without danger, and habit had now passed into nature) to take up arms, and armored them with words, and changed their sluggishness into eagerness by shifting the fear that was in them? Who, if not your wisdom and your power, gathered them, who like immobile stones B were weighing down the earth with fruitless burdens? Where are those painters of Athens from before this time, who painted the general Timotheus asleep during battles, and Fortune handing him cities from here and there? For it would be fitting for them now to write the opposite: namely, that Fortune is everywhere asleep for you, or rather, is struggling against your labors, while you are a general of a double-perilous war, wearying yourself both against fortunes and against the Barbarians. C From whence did your gold-imitating hair [go] into a contrary color? The snow of anxieties has dyed it. And whither has the whiteness of your limbs departed? The scorching sun has taken it away. D There is nothing unlikely in this, yet I surmise that, as the sweats of labors were poured out, that entire whiteness passed over into the heart. The wars against the tyrants were not enough for you, those whom omnipotent judgment profligated, faster than calculation, and almost faster than the first [moment] of luck.
A If there is any luck in tyranny; The varied cares of civil wars, and those of strangers And barbarians, were not enough for you, Entanglements and confusions following one after another. The affairs of the army were not enough for you, 155 But with such pious greed for [battle] You came to such a desire, that you even crossed Inside the entrails of the lawless Persian land. What kind of leaders or Stagirites did you have When you advanced into the land of the prosperous Barbarians? 160 Your mind did not shrink from the immense Distances of the journey, reflecting upon them, B Especially when you saw the very sinews of the war, The wealth that had flowed away toward the Barbarians. The pity of a mother, breathing a manifest flame, 165 Did not restrain you; nor did your children then, Those pearls and life-guides, Constraint of natural affection, hold you back. You did not fear the diseases that plagued you, Nor the fortunes that thwarted [us] because of us— 170 If I must call sins "fortunes"— But as one without flesh, and appearing solely to have Either a body of bronze or a heart of iron, You departed, you campaigned, you armed yourself again, One for all. O fervent force of humanity, C 175 Stronger than any urgent necessity!
VARIOUS READINGS
158: *pro* παρελθεῖν *PV*. 168: ψυχικῇ *P*, ψυχικῇ *ed. v.* (om. codices).NOTÆ
155. *Εμφυλίων*, civil dissension, by which the whole city was troubled when Emperor Heraclius was announced. The frauds and losses of the Avars, concerning which there is more in the *Poem on the Avars*. If one prefers to translate it as "guests," I do not object, for it is sufficiently apparent from the beginning of the praised poem of Pisida that the Avars were received by the Romans as if in hospitality and became fellow-tribesmen. Finally, the Persian wars and the most inhuman slaughters. 169. *Suidas* in the word *εὐλαβήθης* cites this iambic, and, as I think, better than our manuscript has it, *ἠὐλαβήθης* for *εὐλαβήθης*. *Æmilius Portus* translated: *Non reformidasti molestos morbos*. But here, diseases are not only troublesome, but internal, arising from civil dissensions, which Heraclius had taken great care to compose before he contended into Persis. 171. This iambic, which is missing in the manuscript, we have supplied from *Suida* in the word *τύχη*. The citizens of Constantinople, divided into factions and distracted by internal dissensions, provided an opportunity for Chosroes to invade the Roman empire more easily and to carry off from Jerusalem the life-giving wood of the holy cross into Persis. That this was the cause of such great calamity the Byzantines immediately recognized and admitted, among whom this story persisted even many years later, if indeed in *S. John of Damascus*, vol. I, p. 749, these words are read: "This has happened to us also because of our sins; the life-saving cross and the life-bearing resurrection were the boast and glory of every race of Christians, which, through the polluted 'Blue-Green' name—which we have laid upon ourselves and were loathed by Christ who sanctified us by His divine name—were handed over into the hands of the polluted and were defiled." Let us learn... what is the cause of the anarchy and confusion that has seized us... for we have polluted with our countless misdeeds and by civil blood the holy city of our God, which is revered by the whole world; so that even the precious cross, our life, has become an exile from it. And a little after: It has pleased [me] to record this, because Pisida often repeats the same or similar things.HERACLIADOS ACR. 1.
What extension of hand, O General, did you bring, and what foundation did you find up to the clouds, that you stretched yourself out so as to reach and pull down the fortune of the fire-worshipping Chosroes, which was lifted up to the highest peak? A Or is it clear that while your hand was easily stretched forth from the moisture of piety, Christ—a Rock higher than the heavens—stood near as a foundation, by whom you cast down the enemy, who was lifted up in his evils, from the clouds into Tartarus? What path did you pass through, O tireless one, over the whole earth which had been impiously scorched? For Chosroes, worshipping the fire in vain, had it not to save, but to burn. B How then did you pass through the deserts as if they were cities, had you not shown yourself a wandering-free traveler, having come through that intellectual gate? O you who now show the true purple! For it turns purple into an eternal dye, stained piously by your own sweat. And it remains white, although it is purple, and shining with a new cultivation, the more it is worn, the more it brightens. Hail, General, of the cosmic birthday! For every land and city knows your struggle as the effective birthday of life. You have finished the fivefold course to the summit, sweating, driving, contending, running together, until you cast down the transgressor Chosroes.
NOTE.
C Persians indeed [regard] fire as a passing image, insatiable and gluttonous; and the Persians sacrifice to fire, heaping upon it the fuel of fire, saying: "Fire, master, eat." By this image and by this god you have given [them] to consume Eretria, and Athens itself, and the temples of the Ionians, and the images of the Greeks.
Falling under the understanding; but it is opposed to things visible and sensible. Therefore the "intellectual gate" through which Heraclius went out is either piety or wisdom, or finally God, by whose leadership and companionship he could not wander from the right path.
[...] was wont to be said simply and was celebrated with great solemnity by all orders; whence also the triumphal games and natal spectacles are mentioned by Theophanes, [p. ...], which occurred on the [...] day of May.
D And nowhere truly more clearly than here and in the following iambics. Therefore he introduces Heraclius and Chosroes as if they were contending together in a race: the theater or circus is the whole world, the spectators are the citizens of all cities, the judge is God. To this pertains what we said above, v. 51.
[That he] might demonstrate [him] to be a supreme athlete, he attributes to him victory in five races or contests: for as the writers of antiquities record, they were held to be most expert among athletes who had contended with *pentathlon* or the five kinds of contests, namely running, jumping, discus, javelin, [and] wrestling; and hence, or because it is the same thing, the praise of the quinquertio was so distinguished among the ancients, that those who excelled in those five exercises were called "quinquertiones." Which praise indeed extended so widely that those who excelled in any kind of virtues were metaphorically called such. Which [is] said of Democritus [as] Diogenes Laertius reports, lib. ix, 37: "As the philosopher is a pentathlete—and he was as it were truly a pentathlete in philosophy."
...inciting the horses, as charioteers are represented in many ancient monuments.
The violator of the law [the Greeks] called *parabates*, as we observed in *De exped.* II, 289, both because in the chariots, which the ancients used not only in war but also in spectacles, there was a place for two—namely, the charioteer and either a soldier or a *parabates*; whence chariots of this kind were called [dual], as Eustathius plainly interprets in the *Iliad* of Homer, I, p. 860: "A chariot is the place of the carriage, which carries those aforementioned; wherefore it is also called a chariot, as it were falling from [dual], and by nutrition and cutting [...] chariot." See also there the commentaries of P. Politi and Scheffer.
A The charioteers before you were struck with amazement, in such a great extension of the race, seeing that your wheels were not exhausted. 210 And every nation of the earth throughout the four quarters applauded you in the theater of life. All adorn their city when you appear, and having gathered living flowers, they crown you with prayers as with roses. 215 For the arbiter and Lord of the contests opens wide to you the gates of the world, through which you have marched, a victor in all, holding the undefiled image from on high. 220 Thus, poured out insatiably towards these words, I pursue through you such a beautiful insatiability. What shall I say first, what shall I write in the middle? Shall I take my beginning from your latest deeds? For a struggle is joined and a battle occurs, from your contests now mixed together all at once, 225 and a kind of confusion and sedition rises up for me, just as when the streams B of rivers swollen by rain flow, the sea surge remains unmixed. For thus, having gushed forth from one spring, your rivers of sweat, mingled, push forward and pulsate as if by force, one after the other, hastening to run and to be thrust into the abysses of discourse. And if some one of them, perhaps, with more intense speed, surges forward toward another, immediately the mind, having departed, is sweetly divided, so that, now pressed by necessity in narrows, it restrains for itself the flow of the exit, until your mind and your fountain-like mouth shall dissolve so many impediments of words. 240 But now, with a bold and outstretched mind, I fearlessly prepare to swim among these very deeds.
A Rome, judge the balanced verdict; Having found a great number of generals, say To whom it seems to you that the despot should be compared, Let him be set alone, he says, having no equal. Now truly the fire of tyranny had been quenched, The Phocas, that storm, that drunkenness, The prime artisan of our calamities, The torment of those dreams in sleep, He who thought our bloody outpourings To be his own in his thrice-wretched power, The sea monster of the earth, the face of a Gorgon. You did not seize them as the wanderer of Perseus, A But by setting against the destroyer of virgins The terrible image of the immaculate Virgin; For you had her helpful icon, When you approached the voracity of the beast. You brought him down, not having saved One hanging maiden, but whole cities. There was no such thing, even if someone says it came to be, The monster slain long ago by Heracles, As was the monster brought down by the despot Heracles, B A tyrant not destroying one city, But mowing down the entire state. Nevertheless, a reward is prepared for you.
A This is not some fable—higher than the horse of corruption; For this is a fable and a colored clamor, Unless one, like you, possessing gnostic strains, Should allegorize the sowing of the males As being incorruptible by the transmission of the species, Others after others re-kindling the nature. Not this for you, nor may you receive such A reward for us, but may you attain the chariot Of life running into the paths of immortality. Since, moreover, the insolence of the populace Had been swept away along with the tyrant’s drunkenness And held as an inhabitant the disorder of the members, B The city was giving birth to almost all the citizens, Disturbed after the manner of a Centaur (For, being cut and badly mixed, they were occupied with their own confusions), When you came, a physician truly of tranquility, And feeling the disordered arteries, You did not yourself overlook the surging disease, And not at all by cutting partition, Nor again did you use astringent tones, C But with a softening and speaking medicine You persuaded them, from order alone, Not to suffer this beastly passion.
A And wishing to have a rational nature Above, and to cast it down below, and well to kick away The beast-like monster of disorder, Lest, having turned aside from the trodden path, The disorder that stables in the mind 55 Should take the intellect wandering along with it. Thus most excellently do you reconcile the differing dispositions Of the demagogic ranks, And a composite animal of opposite Reasonings, having composed it, you fitted into unity, And the dispositions that were leaping away from one another 60 You joined into one, and you alone set right That which nature had lacked the power to set right. The city, wishing to attach a beneficial Memory to this greatest work, Writes for us in the image below; B For if you had had another painter from above. But since you, like a householder, Have cleared out all the places within us, And the veins of the passions dwelling therein, Having emptied them with your pious purgation, You barred the harm of the cruelty within; But from without, the clouds of Thrace thereafter Raised up against you the storms of battle, And where indeed the Scythian-nurturing Charybdis, Seeming to keep silent, lay in wait like a brigand, There too, the Slavs, rushing like wolves, Joined the surge of the sea to the land, 75 And the stream, defiled by the blood from them, Became red from the violence, from afar.
VARIAE LECTIONES
49 has [Greek]; 65 has [Greek] P. vv. 69-132 are wanting in codex P.NOTAE
Imitated is the most famous apologue which Menenius Agrippa used to recall the people to the City: for as he said, the human body, if its limbs should discord among themselves, is gradually destroyed; so the commonwealth, unless there be a total consensus of the orders, perishes by discord and lives by concord. See Livy, II, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, VI, 86, who relates that Menenius started thus: It is true, however, that Pisida agrees with Plato, who in the *Timaeus*, p. 70, speaking of the parts of the human body, says that reason is placed in the head as in a citadel, but defines the seat of the affections as being situated in the lower part of the belly, as in a manger. 55. A new word, which Pisida coined; *phatne* or "manger." It presents the place of Plato, to which the poet refers, which is appropriate to add here: Greek passage translated: "It is likely that the city is like the human body; for each is composite and from many parts." "having cleared out," "Like a householder," "And the appetitive part of the soul, that of food and drink... this they settled in the space between the intellect and the navel’s boundary, having fashioned in this whole space as it were a manger for the body’s nourishment; and they bound such a thing there like a wild animal." 56. The demagogue is he whose authority and counsels the people obey. When he says he has arranged the dispositions of the military ranks, he affirms he has bent the heads of the factions. 57. See above, v. 48. 61. Nature, said hyperbolically, is the "whole of human nature," that is, for the accomplishing of which any forces of human intellect would have been unequal. 64. Nothing is found in the Byzantine historians concerning this matter. See above, *Acroas.* I, 97. 67. He remains in the allegory taken from the medical skill, of which above v. 41: *exchertho*, to dry out, to cleanse thoroughly; which happens in wounds, so that they may be healed. Greek: "Not in the cruelty of a savage tyrant, but in the affection of a good householder." 70. *Omotes*, "cruelty," from a defect of humors or from heat; which is expressed here by the cruelty of Phocas, deeply implanted in the minds of the citizens by the example: for the cruelty is by metaphor. 71. Theophanes, p. 248, illustrates this passage: The Persians were tyrants to the Romans outside the city, but Phocas did worse things to them inside, murdering and taking captive. [Greek: "The clouds of Thrace"] are the Avars, who when they had often attempted to break into the Roman provinces, finally occupied upper Thrace, as we have discoursed at length at the beginning of *De bello Abar.* and at v. 275, where our George has something similar. 75. Slightly differently, the poet relates this same thing in *De bello Abar.* 275 seqq., enumerating the various nations of the Barbarians who had entered into a plan for destroying Constantinople. And in the same place, through poetic license, he does not call them Charybdis, but a Scylla, and an associate. 76. Ibid. v. 297, among the "Barbarian Scythians," that is, the Avars, he recounts the joined Slavs: but those whom he there calls "Slavs," he here calls "Sclavi." Moreover, the multitude of these Barbarians is said to have set out to plunder the city after boarding monoxyle or small wooden ships through the Ceratine strait: for as our author says in the same place at v. 512, Greek: "The crowd of Slavs, mixed with Bulgarians, stirred up the sea against the land for the battle."and from there, as if vying with you further, the unapproachable sight of the Gorgon of Perseus A approached, and the whole world was confused at once. But there was a need for you to command the battle; another man, by chance, in such a great confusion would not easily have been able to govern, but you, considering that the entire burden, if possible, was to be borne by you on behalf of all, renounced your own cares and made the cares of all men your own. And often, wishing to string your bow and to cast the Charybdis into the Gorgon—that image which turns its beholders into stone—you turned and checked the swift blow. But indeed, in shooting a bolt against you in return, the rapacious wolves were dragging you back. C But in a short time you endured, carrying on a single battle against them that was triple in its danger.
Since therefore these swords of necessity, sharpened for common attacks against us, were broken in a short time by your cares, and winter now was prevailing not only over the affairs, but also over the course of time—a time in which extended nights especially produce inlets for cares—you were anxious to cut off the circumstances from the ends of the sun as far as was possible; for you knew Persia to be the fountain of evils. And so, forming the matter, you contrived to present yourself in the places before the city, not as something pleasant—and especially since it was the winter season, which people are accustomed to find [difficult], but so as to [not provide] any opening for your plans.
A The affairs of the citizens are not to be entangled, nor are they to become occasions for pernicious spies; the intentions of your deliberations are not to be made manifest. For like a cloud, a spy is concealed, slipping into the throng, and remains difficult to discover. There, therefore, O most mighty one, gathering your whole mind and nourishing it with wise leisure, you have read through all the regulations of the laws determined in relation to military and civil matters. But the secret intentions of your purpose became food for the talk of those accustomed to chatter, among whom the tongue, having slipped past the inner gate, wanders and cries out erroneously. Yet you realized that these things deserved pardon; for it seemed that, out of a reasonable necessity, the community felt distressed because of the love they bore for you, not having whetted their tongues out of envy (for worries are not envied by the envious), but B because they could not bear to look upon your absence, even though they had often been beneficiaries of your help.
In this you imitated the Elijah of old; and while dwelling in the deserts, you fed—as you showed—not on food, but on cares; for there was no task of military operations C that you did not pursue with your mind at the leisure of your thoughts: shaping, ordering, preparing, describing, and representing the images of war for others, for yourself, for the army, for the nations—as one might say, encompassing it all in brief: marshaling the battles before the battles and, before the fight, reporting the full victory. Others, indeed, to whom this is dear, will write of the mountains, the ravines, the narrow passes, D and the rocky and difficult cliffs through which you passed like a swift-moving breeze, such that it is not possible either to strike them with rocks hurled from ballistae, nor to overthrow those who are digging beneath the earth. Thus truly the mountains stand as walls for the enemies: they hold the gorges of the path tightly closed. And here I would wish, though a crude writer, that...
to describe your gathering of the army, A (155) that part dispersed to every corner of the earth, yet brought together in a moment by your counsels; for your persuasive speech drew them together just as if another were to collect the scattered fragments of gold with the aid of a single drop of quicksilver. (160) But let these pass, as well as the transit of the Euphrates, across which you crossed faster than the Euphrates itself, and that great calamity which, occurring after arduous labors as if it were a side-issue of life—if it is appropriate to call that a calamity (165) which one might say was better destroyed by a pious master than preserved by the impious Chosroes—I am now approaching the city of Darartasis. They say that this city, with respect to the Persian borders, is northern, but as regards us, it is situated to the South (170) and stands opposite. With a swift movement against it, I shall shape the turning-post in my running speech. For they say that Artaserses, a slave by fortune, with a tyrannical and bold sword B
HERACLIADOS ACR. II.
175 [Those who] caused the Parthians to stand apart from the power of that time, A To the captive throne which he snatched, He restored the Persian state in the midst of evils. They gather the times, as they say, ten With sixty years having run their course, 180 In which the bitter race of this seed Brought forth a child of blood from blood. For in such a length of time There was no change of that blood-stained Chain, that indissoluble bond, 185 But from children to children it was intertwined. B This bond, defiled with obstructions, And every hater of men among them, a murderer, Sowed as a child a parricidal offspring, And he again, like the substance of a viper, 190 Sent back the inheritance to his descendants. And a stream flowed, pouring forth murders, Until, having widened into an immeasurable flood, It stood, having cast Chosroes into the depths. For it was necessary, I think, for those who, like Iocasta, 195 In emulation of one another with similar envy Run toward similar calamities.
VARIE LECTIONES. 190 children P. 192 flood P.
NOTÆ. [Refers to the Persian history, the death of Artabanus the Fourth, the succession of kings, and the chronological difficulties regarding the seventy-six years and the genealogy of the Sassanids, noting the discrepancy between the historical accounts of Agathias and the poetic license employed by Pisides to construct his "chain of blood" to incite hatred against the Persians.]
188. 'Obstruction' is the same as 'obstruction'; here, however, it is used metaphorically for slaughter. 188. In the Gospel they are called 'offspring of vipers,' from the tradition of ancient authors by which it was believed that vipers mate mouth-to-mouth, the female biting off the head of the male for the sweetness of pleasure, and the fetus gnawing through the mother's womb—things which no one today is ignorant of as being false. 190. I understand 'inheritance' to be the slaughter derived from the recently cited opinion of ancient philosophers concerning vipers, which Herodotus reports, book III, 109. 194. You know the well-known crimes of Iocasta, who, after the death of her husband Laius, married her son Oedipus and had by him Polynices and Eteocles, and laid hands upon herself. See Diodorus Siculus, book IV, Seneca in *Oedipus*, and Hyginus, no. 76.
A He then was building this city As a high tower, in an impregnable place, As a wall, as he showed, of sin. 200 For there Chosroes had the Magi And the coals, his own protectors, Held fast by a terrible suspicion, Lest you might snatch away his revered captives. But you, having come with the speed of lightning, 205 And having fashioned fear for them concerning these (for you Do not even desire the slaughter of the Barbarians, Unless they themselves should reach for their swords against you), And having set up many engines of war, Battering rams, tortoises, stone-throwing slings, 210 And having fenced in the phalanx and with a new wall The wall of them having encompassed completely, You took everyone inside out of fear alone. First indeed, therefore, O most powerful one, of all the spoils:
A You turned the gods of Persia into charcoal, 215 Offering acceptable first-fruits to your God The treasures of the ancestors of Chosroes. For by extinguishing them, you were scorching Chosroes, Not as an enemy of the essence of fire (For you, being joined to God, are all fire), 220 But as one wishing to offer unto God Even the creation, free and saved. For the fire itself was delivered from pollutions, Which had been more insulted by being worshipped, But it has a good ignominy as its honor, 225 Purified by your pious destruction, And it endured to fare poorly to its own benefit, Well reduced to ash, having been badly ignited. Thus, having extinguished all that fire, You left nothing, except only for what was necessary to speak of, 230 A small spark for the burning of Chosroes. B
A
It is obvious that the *pyreion*, or palace of fire erected at Dastagerda, which was the seat of the kings of Persia, was far more sumptuous and noble than others, although Cedrenus, as we noted above, B wrote so magnificently of the palace of Gazacum that one might believe nothing greater could be imagined. For there was that heaven fashioned by art, in which the image of Chosroes stood, and from which rain and thunder were produced, so that that foolish king C might make himself equal to God. But whether what Cedrenus says of Gazacum ought to be transferred to Dastagerda, or whether it must be granted that the palace of Dastagerda was entirely similar to the palace of Gazacum, it matters not. By way of a concluding flourish, add the testimony of Tzetzes, *Chiliad* 11, 66, confirming all those things which have been said until now regarding Heraclius: for he also deals with the burning of the palaces of Chosroes and, alluding to this very poem of the *Heracliad*, cites Pisida.
MONITION OF QUERCIUS ON THE AKATHIST HYMN
D By way of a concluding flourish, we have thought it appropriate to append the Akathist Hymn here, which is celebrated throughout Greece: first, because, since it was composed for the rendering of thanks to the Virgin Mother of God in that she herself liberated Constantinople from the siege of the Avars, it demanded to be placed here as in its own seat, following the poem of Pisida on the defeat of the Avars (a); secondly, because since this pious and elegant little song deals with the war waged at Constantinople, it rightfully ought to be numbered among the other writings that pertain to Constantinopolitan affairs; finally, which is the most potent reason, because, if we are not mistaken, the author of this Hymn is George Pisida himself. The things which have moved us to this suspicion are these: 1.) The style is almost entirely poetic; and the whole hymn consists of that elegance and concinnity of words which is observed in other writings of Pisida. Truly, a wonderful industry is evident in this hymn, both in the composing of the expressions and in the circumduction of the periods; for all things are so tempered that words correspond to words, and sentences are opposed to sentences, and the number of terms appears definitive: which, in the preface, has been demonstrated to have been common to Pisida and the sophists.
Verily, whoever has read the Akathist Hymn, and has seen so many antitheses and blossoms of oratory interwoven, will judge that he has stumbled upon a painting rather than a discourse, and he will rightly call the hymn itself, in the words taken from Gregory of Nyssa, *Orat. 6 contr. Eunom.*, a "multi-embroidered and polyphonic weave of words," artificially depicted and distinguished with various colors. Wherefore, since no one before Pisida could have composed this hymn—for the Avars attempted to destroy Constantinople while he was living—and since no other writer becomes known immediately after him who dealt with the Avar siege, Pisida himself will not be rashly judged to be its author. II.) Added to this is the fact that in the Akathist occur words, phrases, and sentences which our poet used elsewhere, which, indeed, it would not have been difficult to collect all together and place before the eyes of readers; but, fearing that in a small work we might appear to be overly diligent, we have thought that this task should be left to those who it concerns. Therefore, we propose for observation only that by which we most believe the author of the Akathist reveals himself: among the many and often repeated salutations that are said to the Virgin Mary, there are some which are to be referred not to the war against the Avars, but to the victory against the Persians. Of such a kind are those which are subject to the section whose beginning is "Idov paidɛ; Xaλdaíwv, etc.":
Hail, you who redeem from the Barbarian superstition; Hail, you who deliver from the mire of works; Hail, you who made the adoration of fire to cease.
The Barbarian, whose superstition regarding the adoration of fire is noted here, is clearly the Persian, whom Pisida calls *pyrolatre* (fire-worshipper) in the beginning of the *Heracliad*, and for that reason often calls him foolish and impious. We conjecture from this that Pisida himself, who had already sung of the Persian and Avar war, wished to combine both victories in the adorning of this Hymn, and to refer them to the Virgin, so that he might here also tacitly commend the piety of the emperor Heraclius, which he amplifies everywhere in his iambics. III.) Whoever considers in his mind that it could have come about that George Pisida, for the dignity of his ecclesiastical office—for he was a sacristan—gladly seized this opportunity to leave behind proof of his zeal for piety toward the Virgin, will understand that our opinion is confirmed thus far: those two epigrams composed by him for the temple of the Blachernae, which are exhibited below among the fragments, can serve as a guarantee of this; for therein are contained, in a few little verses, things which are written otherwise in the whole Hymn. What should be said of the fact that one might not wrongly assert that George Pisida should be numbered among the authors who wrote the ecclesiastical books of the Greeks, namely Canons, Troparia, the Triodion, the Pentecostarion, and other things of this kind, which are called *akolouthiai* or offices? Leo Allatius indeed, drawing up a catalog of authors in his treatise *On the Melodes of the Greeks*, who contributed their labor to the composition of such a collection of discourses, names two Georges, one a Sicilian, the other a Nicomedian; he does not name Pisida: but since he, in his *Syntagma* concerning the Georges, confessed that it was not known to him who the Sicilian George was, and doubted whether the Nicomedian was the same as Pisida, to whom of the praised Georges does this...
should be attributed to all those who appear under the name of George, he did not define. Angelus Maria Quirinius, later a most eminent Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, when in the fourth dissertation appended to the *Old Lenten Office for the Orthodox Greeks* from the common Triodion, he had decided to prepare a Latin version of the canon customarily recited by Greeks on the Sunday of Septuagesima, which is called that of the Publican and the Pharisee, he noticed that the canon itself bore the name of George, and, following the authority of Allatius, he immediately fell into doubt as to who this George might be; although he contended that the Nicomedian was to be joined with the Pisidian, and that the same man was one of those to whom various codices attribute some orations under the name of George the Nicomedian, and others under the name of George the Chartophylax. How slight this conjecture is, is manifest from those things which we touched upon in the Preface concerning both Georges. However, Quirinius would have done us a most welcome favor if he had indicated which orations of George the Nicomedian he found inscribed under the name of the Chartophylax; for from that it might perhaps have been gathered whether anything exists among those orations that seems to suit George the Pisidian. Certainly the canon of Septuagesima, which bears the name simply of George, is not to be adjudicated to our George; for it is far removed from the subtlety and witticisms of the Pisidian style. Whatever, however, may be the case in that matter, it is certain that we do not rashly opine that George A the Pisidian was one of those who contributed something of his own to the ecclesiastical books of the Greeks; for although some have thought that there were no such writers older than the eighth century—an opinion maintained by Francesco Antonio de Simeonibus in his *Specimen of Observations on the Triodion*—nevertheless, with Leo Allatius himself as witness in his *On the Books and Matters of the Greek Church*, where he discusses the Triodion, it is certain that the authors of this book were many and various, who, by adding one thing after another as time went on, made the book neither small by itself, nor meager, but even larger, to the point of tediousness. Authors, the closer they were to Christ and the divine progeny, the better they discerned the things of the truth, and they sang the praises of the saints and the dogmas of the faith in a most excellent manner, and without any offense, etc. Whence what difficulty is there if we say that the Acathist Hymn was composed by George the Pisidian, and was joined to the Triodion along with the other orations conflated by the authors of a later age? Certainly all learned men who have treated of this Hymn have held it to be firm and established, that it was first composed and recited by the Greeks in praise of the Virgin when Heraclius emerged victorious over the Chagan and Chosroes. Which fact is also most clearly evidenced by those words placed before the Acathist hymn. But whether these conjectures have any weight to prove what we intend, will be the judgment of wiser men. To us, certainly, it is Theotokos.
GEORGIUS PISIDA. AKATHIST HYMN.
A Troparion. The incorporeal one, having received in his mind the command given mystically, hastened to the tent of Joseph and stood before the unwedded one, saying: He who bowed the heavens by His descent is received entirely and unchangeably in you; seeing Him who in your womb has taken the form of a servant, I am beside myself and cry out to you: Hail, unwedded bride.
Kontakion. To you, the invincible Champion, I, your city, as one liberated from evils, ascribe victory and thanksgiving, O Theotokos: but as you have power that is unassailable, set me free from all kinds of dangers, that I may cry to you: Hail, unwedded bride.
B THE OIKOI OF THE ACATHISTUS, which are read standing: and these same oikoi are in alphabetical order, that is twenty-four, and are recited by the priest. The leader of the angels was sent from heaven to say to the Theotokos, "Hail"; and with your bodiless voice contemplating you, O Lord, becoming incarnate, he was beside himself and stood crying out to her such things as—
A
Hail, you through whom joy will beam forth. Hail, you through whom the curse will cease. Hail, the recall of fallen Adam. Hail, the redemption of the tears of Eve. Hail, height inaccessible to human thoughts. Hail, depth invisible even to the eyes of angels. Hail, for you are the throne of the King. Hail, for you carry the One who carries all. Hail, star manifesting the Sun. Hail, womb of divine incarnation. Hail, you through whom creation is made new. Hail, you through whom the Creator becomes an infant. Hail, you through whom the Maker is worshipped. Hail, Bride unwedded.
Seeing herself in purity, the holy Virgin said boldly to Gabriel: "Your wondrous voice seems hard for my soul to accept; for how do you speak of a birth from a seedless conception, crying: Alleluia?" B
Seeking to know the unknowable knowledge, the Virgin cried out to the minister: "From pure loins, come, tell me, how is it possible for a son to be born?" To whom he answered in fear, yet crying out thus:
Hail, initiate of the ineffable counsel. Hail, faith of those who have need of silence. Hail, beginning of the miracles of Christ. Hail, summary of his dogmas. C Hail, heavenly ladder, through which God came down. Hail, bridge leading those from earth to heaven. Hail, much-heralded wonder of the angels. Hail, much-lamented wound of the demons. Hail, you who ineffably gave birth to the Light. Hail, you who taught no one the manner of it. Hail, you who surpass the knowledge of the wise. Hail, you who illuminate the minds of the faithful. Hail, Bride unwedded.
The Power of the Most High then overshadowed the one who knew no marriage bed for her conception; and he showed her, whose womb was fruitful, as a delicious field to all who desire to reap salvation, while chanting thus: Alleluia. D
Bearing the God-receiving womb, the Virgin hastened to Elizabeth; and the infant of the latter immediately recognized her greeting and rejoiced, and with leaps, as if with songs, he cried out to the Theotokos:
Hail, branch of the unfading sprout. Hail, possession of the incorruptible fruit. Hail, you who cultivate the Cultivator who loves mankind. Hail, mothering the Planter of our life. Hail, field burgeoning with an abundance of mercies.
A Hail, table bearing an abundance of propitiations. Hail, you who cause the meadow of delights to flourish. Hail, you who prepare a harbor for souls. Hail, acceptable incense of prayer. Hail, propitiation for the whole world. Hail, God’s benevolence toward mortals. Hail, mortals’ confidence before God. Hail, unwedded bride. Joseph the chaste, having within him a storm of doubting thoughts, was troubled when he beheld you, who are experienced in no marriage, and suspecting a secret theft of marriage, O blameless one; but having been taught your conception from the Holy Spirit, he said: Alleluia. The shepherds heard the angels hymning the incarnate presence of Christ; and running as toward a Shepherd, they behold Him as an unblemished Lamb, having been pastured in the womb of Mary, whom they hymned and said: Hail, mother of the Lamb and Shepherd. B Hail, sheepfold of rational sheep. Hail, defense against invisible enemies. Hail, opener of the gates of Paradise. Hail, for the heavenly are rejoicing with the earth. Hail, for the earthly are dancing with the heavens. Hail, the most eloquent mouth of the apostles. Hail, the invincible courage of the martyrs. Hail, the firm bulwark of the faith. C Hail, shining token of grace. Hail, through whom Hades was despoiled. Hail, through whom we were clothed in glory. Hail, unwedded bride. Having beheld a god-coursing star, the Magi followed its radiance; and holding it as a lamp, they searched through it for the mighty King; and having reached the Unreachable, they rejoiced, crying out to Him: Alleluia. The sons of the Chaldeans saw in the hands of the Virgin Him whom He had fashioned with His hand as man; and perceiving Him to be Lord, even though He had taken on the form of a servant, they hastened to honor Him with gifts, and to cry out to the Blessed One: D Hail, mother of the never-setting star. Hail, radiance of the mystical day. Hail, you who extinguished the furnace of deception. Hail, you who enlighten the initiates of the Trinity. Hail, you who cast the inhuman tyrant from his throne. Hail, you who manifested Christ as a merciful Lord. Hail, you who redeem from barbarous superstition. Hail, you who deliver from the mire of works. Hail, you who caused the worship of fire to cease. Hail, you who pluck from the flame of the passions. Hail, guide of the faithful in temperance.
Hail, joy of all generations. Hail, bride unwedded. A
Having become God-bearing heralds, the Magi returned to Babylon, having accomplished your oracle and having proclaimed you to be the Christ to all; they left Herod as a trifler, who knew not how to sing: Alleluia.
By shining forth in Egypt the light of truth, you chased away the darkness of falsehood; for the idols of that region, O Savior, unable to endure your power, have fallen; and those delivered from them cried out to the Theotokos: Hail, uplifting of men. Hail, overthrowing of demons. Hail, you who trampled upon the error of deceit. Hail, you who exposed the treachery of the idols. Hail, sea that drowned the Pharaoh of the mind. Hail, rock that gave drink to those thirsting for life. Hail, pillar of fire guiding those in darkness. Hail, shelter of the world, broader than a cloud. Hail, food successor to the manna. Hail, minister of holy delight. Hail, land of promise. Hail, from whom flows milk and honey. Hail, bride unwedded. B
When Symeon was about to depart from the present deceitful age, you were given to him as an infant; but you were acknowledged by him also as perfect God; wherefore he marveled at your ineffable wisdom, crying: Alleluia.
The Creator showed a new creation, having manifested himself to us who were made by him; he sprouted from a seedless womb, and kept it, as it was, incorrupt, so that we, seeing the miracle, may praise her, crying: Hail, flower of incorruptibility. Hail, crown of continence. Hail, you who shine forth the type of the resurrection. Hail, you who represent the life of the angels. Hail, tree of splendid fruit, from which the faithful are nourished. D Hail, wooden tree of pleasant shade, under which many are protected. Hail, you who carry in your womb the guide for the wandering. Hail, you who give birth to the redeemer for the captives. Hail, intercession before the just judge. Hail, forgiveness for many who have sinned. Hail, robe for those who are naked of confidence. Hail, love surpassing all desire. Hail, bride unwedded.
Seeing the strange birth, let us be estranged from the world, transferring our minds to heaven; for this cause did the highest God appear on earth as a humble man, wishing to draw to the heights those who cry to him: Alleluia.
A The uncircumscribed Word was entirely in the lower regions, yet in no way absent from those above. For it was a divine condescension, not a local transition that took place, and a birth from a God-inspired Virgin who hears these words: Hail, containment of the uncontainable God. Hail, gate of the venerable mystery. Hail, doubtful hearing of the faithless. Hail, undoubted boasting of the faithful. Hail, most holy chariot of Him who sits upon the Cherubim. Hail, most excellent dwelling of Him who is above the Seraphim. Hail, you who reconciled opposites into one. Hail, you who joined virginity and childbirth. Hail, you by whom the transgression was loosed. Hail, you by whom paradise was opened. Hail, key of the kingdom of Christ. Hail, hope of eternal goods. Hail, bride unwedded.
The whole nature of angels was amazed at the great work of your incarnation; for they beheld the unapproachable God, as accessible man, conversing with us and hearing from all in this manner: Alleluia.
B Eloquent orators, like fish devoid of speech, we see before you, O Mother of God; for they are at a loss to tell how you remain a virgin and have had the power to give birth. But we, marveling at the mystery, faithfully cry out: Hail, receptacle of the wisdom of God. Hail, storehouse of His providence. Hail, you who show philosophers to be unwise. Hail, you who refute those who reason without logic. Hail, for the clever inquisitors have been shown to be fools. Hail, for the creators of fables have withered away. Hail, you who untangle the knotted arguments of the Athenians. Hail, you who fill the nets of the fishermen. Hail, you who draw forth from the abyss of ignorance. Hail, you who enlighten many in knowledge. Hail, ship for those desiring to be saved. Hail, port for those sailing through this life. Hail, bride unwedded.
C Wishing to save the world, the Creator of all things came to it of his own accord; and being a shepherd, as God, for our sake he appeared as a man like us; for by calling the like with the like, as God he hears: Alleluia.
D You are a wall for virgins, Mother of God the Virgin, and for all who flee to you; for the Maker of heaven and earth fashioned you, O immaculate one, having dwelt in your womb, and taught all to salute you: Hail, pillar of virginity. Hail, gate of salvation. Hail, author of spiritual renewal.
A Hail, minister of divine goodness. Hail, for you regenerated those who were shamefully conceived. Hail, for you restored to their right mind those whose minds had been captured. Hail, you who put down the corrupter of minds. Hail, you who gave birth to the Sower of purity. Hail, bridal chamber of an immaterial union. Hail, you who fit the faithful to the Lord. Hail, beautiful nurturer of virgins. Hail, matchmaker of holy souls. Hail, O unwedded bride. Every hymn, which would seek to encompass the magnitude of your many compassions, falls short and fails; for even if we offered you songs equal in number to the sand, O holy King, we perform nothing worthy of the things you have given us who cry out to you: B Alleluia. We behold the holy Virgin as a lamp-bearing light to those in darkness; for by kindling the immaterial light, she leads all to divine knowledge, illuminating the mind with its radiance, and she is honored by our cry: Hail, ray of the intellectual Sun. Hail, beam of the unsetting light. Hail, brilliance illuminating souls. Hail, as thunder, terrifying the enemies. Hail, for you send forth a manifold radiance. Hail, for you gush forth a manifold river. Hail, for you depict the pattern of the baptismal pool. Hail, for you take away the filth of sin. Hail, basin washing the conscience. Hail, bowl mixing exultation. Hail, scent of the fragrance of Christ. Hail, life of mystical banqueting. Hail, O unwedded bride. When He who is the debt-payer of all men determined to grant grace for the debts of old, He journeyed in His own person to those who had departed from His grace, and having torn up the handwriting, He hears from all thus: C Alleluia. All of us sing of your birth, praising you as a living temple, O Theotokos; for the Lord, who contains all things by His hand, having dwelt in your womb, sanctified you, glorified you, and taught all to cry to you: D Hail, tabernacle of God and the Word. Hail, holy one, greater than the holies. Hail, ark gilded by the Spirit. Hail, inexhaustible treasury of life. Hail, precious diadem of pious kings. Hail, august glory of devout priests. Hail, unshaken tower of the Church. Hail, impregnable wall of the kingdom. Hail, through whom trophies are raised. Hail, through whom enemies fall. Hail, healing of my flesh. Hail, salvation of my soul. Hail, O unwedded bride.
ON THE ACATHIST HYMN. ANNOTATIONS OF J. M. QUERCIUS
A The Greeks call this hymn *Akathistos* because they sing it standing, and they call the feast itself or the day by the cause of the title—the solemnity or day of the *Akathistos*. Hence they are rightly judged to be in error by Gretser (Vol. II, p. 450), Meursius, and Junius, who supposed *Akathistos* to be an epithet of the Virgin, as if you were to say of a Virgin who is traveling, or one who does not sit and rest. They could certainly have known that this is not the origin of the word *akathistos* from the Greek Menologion and Triodion themselves. The hymn consists of a Troparion, a Kontakion, and Odes, concerning which one should consult Goar’s *Euchologion Graecum*, Du Cange’s *Glossarium mediae et infimae Graecitatis*, Leo Allatius’s *De libris et rebus ecclesiasticis Graecorum*, Isaac Habert’s *Liber Pontificalis Ecclesiae Graecae*, and Quirinius in the *Diatriba* mentioned above (col. 1535). It is found in the ritual books of the Greeks, and especially in the Triodion, which contains the Office of Lent. Certain religious men among the Greeks have been accustomed to translate this hymn into the vernacular tongue which they use, to recite it often in private, and to carry it with them as a kind of firm protection and the present guardianship of the Virgin. It is indeed sung in the Greek Church according to a solemn rite, divided into parts and sung in whole on the first four Saturdays of Lent, and fully and at once on the Saturday of the fifth week, namely, before the day of the feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in whose praise it seems to have been composed; for it is manifest that it consists for this reason of so many salutations, beginning with that angelic "Hail." Therefore, since it is held in such honor and is still held by the Greeks today, who would not marvel at the impudence of Philotheus, Patriarch of Constantinople, who, addicted to the errors of Gregory Palamas, acted so foolishly that he did not blush to make it similar to the Virgin Mother of God, and to transfer this very Acathist Hymn, with a few things changed, by parody to the praise of this same Palamas, not without the greatest note of temerity? See Allatius, *Graecia orthodoxa*, Vol. I, p. 771. It has been rendered in prose and verse into Italian, and also translated into Ruthenian, Arabic, and other languages; that it was done in Latin... B by Joannes Rubeon Antonianus, and inserted into the *Florilegium* of prayers requested from the Greeks, is attested by Theophilus Rainaudus, Vol. VII, *Nomenclator Marianus*, obs. 2. Finally, a few years ago, the illustrious man Joseph Schiro, Archbishop of Dyrrachium, published it separately in Rome (A.D. 1746), provided with a new translation that chance offered him, so that he might more easily entice pious men to the service and veneration of the Virgin, having presented a useful little book of small size. We have followed that version, since we found it sufficiently elegant and faithfully expressing the Greek sentiments, if you except a few things. However, we have omitted the short notes which the aforementioned Schiro added to his edition, either because we judged them not necessary or because we knew that a certain measure must be held in reprinting these things. Concerning the Acathist Hymn, there is more in the notes to Codinus Curopalates (Paris ed., p. 103), in Theophilus Rainaudus (loc. cit.), in Gretser (Vol. *De cruce*, p. 450), in Pagi (ad an. 625), in Jos. Sim. Assemani (*Kalendaria Ecclesiae universae*, Vol. VI, p. 588), and in Falconius (Pref. to *Tabulae Ruthenicae*), who all agree on this one thing: that it was first composed and began to be sung when, under the emperor Heraclius, Constantinople was liberated from the siege of Sarbarus and Chaganus. But as to when the Greeks instituted the practice of receiving the Acathist among the ecclesiastical Offices, or at what time of the fifth week of Lent they instituted the solemn recitation of it, it is not clearly evident. C For from the Synaxarion, or the Lesson which the Triodion proposes to be read on that day, this much appears: that Constantinople was liberated three times from the incursion of Barbarians; and that the Greeks wished to offer deserved praises and thanks to the Virgin for these three benefits received, through the singing of one hymn. We deemed it relevant to bring here the text of the Lesson itself, whose author is said to be Nicephorus Callistus, taken from the Triodion; for although Gretser has long since brought it to light in Latin (loc. cit.), we judged that it should be produced again so that nothing that seems to pertain to this matter might be missing.
On the same day (namely the Saturday of the fifth week of Lent), we celebrate the Acathist Hymn of our most holy Lady, the Theotokos...
A for this reason: when Heraclius held the imperial rule over the Romans, the King of the Persians, Chosroes, seeing the affairs of the Romans utterly humbled by the tyrant Phocas, sent one of his satraps, named Sarbarus, with many thousands, to bring all the East under his dominion; for Chosroes had already previously destroyed and overthrown about ten myriads of Christians, whom the Hebrews had ransomed and then destroyed. The arch-satrap Sarbarus, therefore, having plundered the entire East, reached as far as Chrysopolis itself, which is now called Scutarium. The Emperor Heraclius, therefore, being in a state of poverty regarding public funds, had the sacred vessels and instruments of the churches melted down and converted into coin, so that the sum might be greater and more perfect, and having set out by the Euxine Sea with a fleet, he invaded the regions of Persia and devastated them; and Chosroes was defeated by him with his remaining army with overwhelming force. B Not long after, Siroes, the son of Chosroes, revolted against his father, claimed the kingdom for himself, and having killed his father Chosroes, made a treaty with the Emperor Heraclius. However, the Chagan, the leader of the Mysians and Scythians, having learned that the emperor had crossed the sea into Persia, broke the treaties he had entered into with the Romans and, bringing along countless hordes, invaded the regions of the West against the city of Constantine, uttering words of blasphemy against God. Immediately, therefore, the sea was filled with ships, and the land with countless foot soldiers and horsemen. But Sergius the Patriarch greatly exhorted the people of Constantine not to lose heart, but to cast all their hope from the bottom of their souls into God and into His Mother, the all-pure Theotokos; and indeed, Bonus the Patrician, who at that time was governing the city, was preparing those things necessary for the repulsion of the enemies; for it is necessary that, along with heavenly help, we also exert our own diligence and effort. C The Patriarch, taking the divine images of the Mother of God together with all the multitude, went about the wall from above, thereby procuring their security. As Sarbarus from the East, and the Chagan from the West, began to set fire to all the things in the surroundings of the city, the Patriarch went around the walls carrying the non-manufactured image of Christ, and the venerable and life-giving wood, and in addition the venerable garment of the Mother of God. The Chagan, the Scythian, made an attack upon the city of Constantine from the side where the land walls face, with an infinite multitude, extremely well-secured with weapons, and in such numbers that one Roman had to fight against ten Scythians. But the unconquerable champion, by means of the very few soldiers who were present in her temple at the Spring, slew very many of them. From there the Romans, having taken courage again and leapt for joy under the leadership and sponsorship of the invincible Mother of God, gloriously carried off the victory over them; and when the citizens thought to enter into pacts and treaties, they met with a rejection. For the Chagan said: D “Do not be deceived in the God in whom you believe; for surely tomorrow I shall capture your city.” But those of the city having heard—
stretched forth their hands to God. A Having thus joined forces, the Chagan and Sarbarus attacked by land and by sea, striving to capture the city with various machines and engines; but they were repelled by the Romans with such slaughter that the living were not enough to bury the dead. Their ships, constructed from single trees and filled with armed men, were being carried through the gulf known as the Horn toward the temple of the Theotokos in Blachernae, when a whirlwind and tempest suddenly fell upon the sea and, dividing it into two parts, they perished along with all the enemy's vessels. A truly wonderful miracle of the most chaste Theotokos appeared, and a most glorious deed was done; for it cast them all out onto the seashore, which is at Blachernae. The people, having opened the gates without delay, slaughtered them all entirely, even the children and women joining against them in the fight. Their leaders returned not without tears and lamentation.
But the God-loving people of Constantinople, throughout the whole night without any intermission, sang a hymn of thanksgiving to the Theotokos, as to one who had kept watch for their salvation and who, by her celestial power, had erected so notable a trophy against the enemies. From that time, therefore, in memory of so great and divine a miracle, the Church willed that this day be established as a feast of the Theotokos, by whose aid so excellent a trophy was erected. It was called the "Akathistos," because then both the people and the entire clergy performed the same work with the same fervor, none ceasing, and none resting from divine praises. C
After thirty-six years had passed, under the reign of Constantine Pogonatus, the Agarenes, having assembled an infinite army, once again attacked Constantinople and besieged it for seven years; at which time they wintered in the parts of Cyzicus and lost many of their own men. Then, having abandoned hope, they departed with their entire fleet, but being carried to Syleum, they all perished, swallowed by the waves of the sea, through the protection of the all-immaculate Theotokos.
But also a third time, under Leo the Isaurian, the Agarenes, having gathered more than many myriads, first destroyed the kingdom of the Persians; then, having overrun Egypt and Libya, and the Indians, Ethiopians, and Spaniards, D they at length undertook an expedition against the queen of cities herself, bringing with them eight thousand ships. Having therefore surrounded the city, they waited as if they were about to plunder it immediately. The holy people of the city, taking up the venerable wood of the precious and life-giving Cross and carrying the revered image of the Virgin Hodegetria, went around the walls, appeasing God with tears. By a common decree, therefore, the Agarenes were divided into two parts; and some carried arms against the Bulgarians, where more than twenty thousand of them fell, while those who were left behind to capture the city, hindered by the chain which stretches from Galata to the walls of the city, were carried to the place they call Sosthenion, where, when a violent north wind blew...
A and broke upon them, many of their ships were shattered and destroyed. Those who remained fell into such severe famine that they did not refrain from eating human flesh and mixing and eating ordure. Then, having taken flight and reached the Aegean sea, they committed all their vessels and themselves to the depths of the sea. For a sudden, violent hail fell from heaven and, stirring up a boiling of the sea, dissolved the pitch of the ships; and thus that countless fleet perished, with only three remaining to bring the tidings.
For these reasons, therefore, we celebrate the present feast of all these supernatural miracles of the most pure Mother of God. It is called the "Acathistus" because the whole people, standing, sang the hymn to the Mother of the Word on that night; and because, although in all other stanzas we are accustomed to sit, in these of the Mother of God, we all listen standing. By the intercessions of your champion and invincible Mother, O Christ God, deliver us also from the calamities that beset us, and have mercy on us, as the only lover of mankind.
B I doubt this: for the title in the Triodion itself declares it clearly enough: "We read from the sixth Stanza, and we stand for the reading of them." But indeed, although enough and more than enough has been said hitherto concerning the Avars and the Hymn Acathistus, nevertheless, that all things which might contribute something to the illustration of the Avar war may be held in one volume, we have wished to add here a more prolix narrative, taken from the Synaxarion, than the one which Gretser testified existed in the Bavarian Library, and which François Combefis published from the Code of the Royal Library in *Hist. Monothel.* p. 805; so that you might have readily at hand whatever has been brought to light regarding this matter down to the present day, and that our collection of Constantinopolitan affairs might be rendered more complete and absolute by our care. You will easily perceive that the preceding narrative is a compendium of the following one, and that both agree so well with the poem of Pisides that they seem to have been forged from it.
Now you have all those things which could be said concerning the Hymn Acathistus most lucidly weighed and demonstrated in this narrative. It would be entirely superfluous to gather here the points that Gretser skillfully noted against Junius to refute his hallucination concerning the denomination of the Acathistus. Nevertheless, I would wish you to observe whether those words with which the narrative closes might be better translated thus: "Because in the reciting of all other stanzas we have the custom that we sit; but in these which pertain to the Mother of God, we all listen standing," etc. Namely, while they are being read by the priest—which is evident from the title prefixed to the same Hymn in the Triodion; for the Stanzas themselves are recited by the priest. Gretser rendered the word *oikois* as "houses," that is, temples of the Virgin; but I, on the other hand, observe that *oikois*, "Stanzas," from which it has already been observed that the Hymn Acathistus is composed, is what is treated here, not...
A useful narrative collected from ancient history, and declaring the memory of the miraculously occurred wonder: when the Persians and Barbarians besieged this royal city, but perished, having experienced divine justice; while the city, preserved unharmed by the intercessions of the Theotokos, has since then annually sung a prayer of thanksgiving, naming the day the Acathistus.
D In the times of Heraclius, emperor of the Romans, Chosroes, holding the rule of the Persians, sent his general Sarbarus with heavy forces, to overrun every province under the Romans, like some lightning bolt, setting on fire, burning down, and obliterating everything. This man, with great impunity, while plundering the East and destroying those who...
A encountered him—for there was no one to stop or hold back his widespread assault, since the Roman forces were utterly humbled by the heavy and savage cruelty of the tyrant Phocas, a military man, who at that time directed the Roman rule—having reached Chalcedon, he established a camp, and made ready everything for the siege of this great city; for this was what he had resolved upon, and he strove for it by every means. Seeing this, Heraclius, who had recently taken up the government of the empire after the tyrant Phocas, being very distressed and weighed down by sorrow, left the palace, and having gathered the Roman forces that were still surviving, suddenly invaded their territory via the Euxine Sea, while the Persians knew nothing of it. But the Scythian Chagan, having learned of the emperor’s expedition, immediately set to work; and he filled the sea with the ships they had—which, because they were fashioned from a single long log, are called 'monoxyla' in the barbarian tongue—and the land with cavalry and infantry.
Meanwhile, the people in the royal city were exhorted by Sergius, B who held the patriarchate at that time, and were taught not to lose heart. "Take courage, my children," he said, "and let us place our hope of salvation in God alone; let us lift up our hands and our eyes to him from our whole soul, and he himself will dissolve the evils that have surrounded us and will scatter all the designs of the Barbarians against us." Encouraged by these words of Sergius, the people who were in the city all remained strengthened in faith—in the immaculate Theotokos and in Christ our God, who by his clemency willed to be born of her. Waiting to see his mercy C upon them, they endured in hope, which shortly after they truly merited to see, nor did they fall away empty of their hope.
As for the man who had been left by the emperor for the protection of the city, Bonus by name, he busied himself diligently with everything possible against the Barbarian engines of war, with every means at his disposal. For God wills that we should not sit by inert and idle, but that we should also contribute some labor; and that while we ourselves devise certain things, we should yet place all hope of salvation in Him. For so too he commanded Joshua, the son of Nun, to set an ambush against Ai, and he equipped Gideon against the Madianites D with water jars and lamps. But while Bonus was fortifying the walls and preparing everything necessary for war, Sergius the pontiff took the sacred images of the Mother of God—on which the infant Savior was also most notably depicted being carried in his mother's arms—and went around the walls; by this supplication, he both provided protection to the city and brought terror, destruction, and flight upon the Barbarians and enemies, which, being brought upon them shortly after, delivered them to total annihilation.
For since the Persians who were camped at the walls of Chalcedon began to set fire to everything around it and neighboring Chalcedon,
A and to do all the other things which those who intend to besiege a city are accustomed to do, the Scythians and Barbarians similarly appeared to be doing things comparable to the Persians. The Patriarch again taking the unmade-by-hand image B of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and the precious garment of the All-Holy [Theotokos], and furthermore the life-giving wood, went around the walls; and with tears he said, praying: "Arise, O Lord, and thy enemies shall be scattered; and they shall vanish as smoke, and shall melt as wax before the face of fire."
Not yet had three days passed since the burning that took place, when the leader of the Scythians attacked the city with his whole army; and so great was the phalanx of the enemies, arrayed in an innumerable multitude, and safeguarded by the arming of their weapons, so that, to declare the whole thing briefly, ten Scythians were to clash with one Roman. But nevertheless, the commander-in-chief and vanguard of the Christians, the immaculate Lady, the swiftest helper of those who call upon her, through soldiers who happened to be at the Spring, having killed many of the Scythians who had set out on the expedition, not only brought down the arrogance of the Scytharch by such a stratagem, but also made the total destruction that was about to happen to them a short time later, as it were, a pledge of what had occurred; for from this the Romans were feeling great, and, having been filled with much courage, they engaged in skirmishes with them almost every day, having the Mother of God fighting for them, and proving them more robust; C and as things of the Scythians were confounded...
A by their machines, and their might thwarted, and their experience in wars mocked.
Under these circumstances, by a common decision of the patriarch and the people, some notable men are sent from the city with gifts to address the Scythians peacefully and to invite them to terms of peace. But that beast rather than man, not only did not receive those warnings of peace, but even took the gifts that were brought, and sent the envoys away with nothing accomplished, adding only this to them: "Do not be deceived regarding the God in whom you trust; for tomorrow I will certainly take your city and render it desolate. By way of compassion, however, I grant you the freedom to depart—depart naked wherever you wish; for the rest, go, expecting no further kindness from me."
Upon hearing these words from those who had served as envoys, the citizens, groaning from the depths of their hearts, stretched out their hands to heaven, and bathed in many tears, they said: B "Protector, O Lord, who resistest all the proud, whose power is incomparable, and whose dominion is indissoluble; hear the words of that barbarian which he sent, reviling Thee, the Lord of all, and deliver the city of Thine inheritance, and the people who are called by Thy name; that they may not say, 'Where is their God?'"
And these things the people said. But God thwarted the crossing of the Persians to the Chagan, which they had planned, with many of them being slain, whom they were sending as reinforcements. Furthermore, they did not cease for two or three whole days from skirmishing and fighting in small battles in various places. C This dog was plotting with this intention: that on land he would bring up machines to demolish the walls and take the city; but by sea, he would prepare the Scythian boats, which he had in countless numbers, so that at one time and at the same hour, the battle would descend upon the city from both land and sea.
With such a great apparatus of war thus prepared, having taken as many of his cavalry as were choice, he arrived at the regions of the Pontus, by which they were sailing, and showed himself to the Persian army; and he in turn did the same. Or rather, I shall say it better: one from Asia, and the other from Europe, were roaring like wild beasts against the city, D hoping it would be a ready prey for them. But who will speak of the wonders of God shown at that time? Who will be able to narrate the Mother of God's excessive kindness and mercy toward us? For when the Chagan had filled the bays of the Cerates with his boats and soldiers, plotting in this way—to demolish the city walls by means of those who were fighting on land, and to achieve an easy victory over it by means of those who were about to enter into naval battle in the bays of the Cerates—
A the God and Lady Virgin showed their hopes to be futile and empty. For the Roman army killed such a multitude of the enemy on every part of the wall that the survivors were no longer sufficient to burn the corpses of the dead. And this, indeed, was the deed of those who were fighting on land. But as for the enemies who were approaching from the sea, the Theotokos and Lady sank their monoxyla in front of the divine temple at Blachernae, suddenly raising an extraordinary and violent gale of wind against them.
For when they came near to this divine house, the sea, having been greatly uplifted and divided by divine spirit into partitions, utterly submerged and drowned them all together with their monoxyla. And it was possible to see at that time a very great and ineffable prodigy: the waves rising up like mountains, and swelling up in the manner of a wild beast, and raging, and leaping sharply upon the enemies of the Mother of God, and mercilessly devouring them, just as she once did to the Egyptians, B who were pursuing the ancient Israel as he walked through it in a new manner on foot. Thus the Theotokos, who fights for and shields her own city, erected this bloodless trophy in such a way and by such a stratagem: having utterly submerged those who had waged an unrelenting war against her own inheritance and had raised arms against her, and having made them sport for the sea’s currents; but having perfectly safeguarded from the evils that had befallen them her own portion, which had placed its hope of salvation in her and in her alone.
Then, too, the leader of these forces himself, having become an eyewitness of such a destruction of his own army, standing on a high place with his cavalry, was beating his breast and face with his hands. But those inside the walls who were struggling against the enemies, when they learned of the destruction that had come upon the Barbarians in the sea, immediately strengthened by divine power and fortified by the strength of the Virgin, threw open the gates of the walls, and with a cry and shouting they sallied forth against the enemies; and such joy and power seized our own, and such terror the Barbarians, that even children and women, rushing against them, C penetrated into the very camp of the enemies. Then it was possible to see “One pursuing a thousand, and two putting ten thousands to flight.” Such is the all-pure and Virgin; such is the Theotokos and Lady; she has granted strength to the weak and power to the powerless. D As the sun went down and night overtook them, the Barbarians committed all the siege engines, which they had brought in upon wagons, to the fire; and thanks to the Theotokos, who arranged that those who had been the authors of their own toils and engines should also be their burners. The Patriarch, and the rest of the people, with hands stretched out to heaven, gratitude—
A pouring out in tears, expressed themselves in these words: "Thy right hand, O Lord, is become glorious in power: Thy right hand, O Lord, hath dashed in pieces the enemy: and in the greatness of Thine excellence Thou hast overthrown them that rose up against Thee." [Exod. xv, 6.]
Thus, then, did the mindless Chagan, who had campaigned with an innumerable multitude, return in shame. In like manner also, he who led the Persian army, placing his hand over his mouth and covering his face, leading only a few with him from such many thousands, returned in shame to his own country. In this way the minister of divine economy and goodness, that most holy and truly immaculate Mother of God, that powerful defense of the Christians, demonstrated the strength of her protection over us; thus she bestowed upon us so great and marvelous a salvation—to commemorate which benefit, we perform this present annual gathering of the collective people, and celebrate a nocturnal festival, offering to her the praise of hymns in thanksgiving. But these things have been said thus far.
Verum, when thirty-six years had passed since that time, while Constantine Pogonatus was reigning over the empire, a swarm of Agarenes once again sought Constantinople with a huge fleet, and immediately they put in at the harbor of the Hebdomon. B Daily they engaged in naval battles, from the spring season until the autumn; and when winter came on, they would cross over and winter at Cyzicus. Then, as spring began again, setting sail from there, they engaged in battle with their ships in a similar manner. And so, when the war had been protracted for seven years, and the fleet of the Saracens had lost very many ships and many countless martial men, and furthermore had suffered great loss of the necessary provisions it carried, it too returned empty-handed to its own lands. And when it had come to the regions of Sylæum, C tossed by a violent whirlwind of winds, it was utterly destroyed by the just wrath of God. Thus, at various times, did those wretches attack this city preserved by God, intent on venting the impulse of their fury, only to be forced to return empty-handed and full of shame.
Yet again, because their dominion had been advanced to greater heights on every side, and had increased from the rising to the setting sun, and had spread in multitude; first they seized the kingdom of the Persians, D and then Egypt and Libya, granting a pledge to the Christians, that they would not—
A compel them to abandon the blameless and orthodox faith in Christ our God, which, however, they did not keep; but rather they demonstrated many to be martyrs, because they would not allow the sign of the precious cross to be trodden underfoot by them; for this was what they compelled the Christians to do. And, as I said, they overran the whole earth, looting it. Having also swept over the Indians and the Ethiopians and the Moorish B nations, as well as the Libyans and the Spaniards, last of all they campaigned against this royal city, wishing to capture it. Although the Emperor Leo the Isaurian, who had just attained the throne, proposed to pay them tribute, they insisted also on stationing guards in the city; for they were emboldened by the multitude of their own troops and their mercenaries, and by the infinitely prepared naval fleet, which, as those who have labored over the chronicles have recorded, was numbered at one thousand eight hundred vessels.
Having set up their camp before the city, those wandering enemies of Christ for a time made no assault upon the walls, because they were occupied with building habitations, as if remaining at home; for they were bereft of prudence and reason, and in truth were being thwarted by God, who rendered them foolish in their own designs. But the Christ-loving people who were in the city, offering up constant supplications with tears, as was their custom to do even in times of peace, took up the all-venerable wood of the cross of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and the holy icon of the all-holy Virgin, and went around the wall, lifting their hands to God and saying: "Arise, O Lord, do not cast off Thy people forever; for behold, Thine enemies have made a noise, and they that hate Thee have lifted up their head. Do not give Thy inheritance to shame, for nations to rule over us, lest they should say: Where is their God? But let them know that Thy name is Lord Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father."
And a certain one of the enemies, an Agarene, invoking the city with blasphemous words as Constantia, and calling the church by the empty name of Sophia, fell down into a pit with his horse and perished. But also their herald, having climbed up into a high tree in order to proclaim their abominable prayer with the summons of his voice, himself likewise fell down and violently breathed out his impious soul. Subsequently, after two army commanders had been created and resolved to march against the Bulgars, one was left to besiege the city, while the other set out to fight against the Bulgars; and joining battle with them, they were defeated, and more than twenty thousand fell. Those who were left behind, having escaped the slaughter, with C D
much shame returned to those from whom they had been separated. But when, having returned, they attempted to break through by sending their ships into the part of the Blachernae, they were prevented from accomplishing what they had intended by the chain extended from the other side of the crossing to the opposite side of Galata A.
Despondent at that success, they withdrew into the narrow bay and brought their ships to the port called Sosthenion and to other very narrow harbors, most of which were shattered by a violent storm and wind, from which the Romans set fire to the larger ones. And while the city was gripped by a shortage of food, the enemy, having B devastated everything they encountered without distinction and having left nothing for their own necessary sustenance, fell into such a famine that they did not abstain even from human flesh or the carcasses of animals that had died of their own accord. Furthermore, they kneaded human excrement with a little leaven and ate it, baked in a furnace, so that for this reason many of their famous men and warriors slipped away into the city. And the Egyptians, while pursuing Israel, were plunged into the deep like a stone; for the Lord brought the waters of the sea upon them and covered them with the deep. The Saracens, while taking to flight from us, suffered the same things as them; for a storm, an unusual tempest with a seething of the sea, destroyed almost that entire fleet of a thousand ships C. For when the greater part of the fleet had sailed to the Aegean Sea, a terrifying hail fell from the sky with great force. And just as iron, when it meets fire, dissolves its cold nature into heat, so indeed did the hailstones strike the sea currents and cause them to seethe; and through such boiling, [the] pitch with which the enemies' ships were coated dissolved, and in the sight of those watching, they were submerged into the depths, so that only ten D of them survived that shipwreck. And it was possible to see on all the islands, shores, coastlines, and promontories, their dead heaped up here and there.
A These things, then, let all be told to another generation, to speak in the language of the psalms, and let every mouth of Christians address the sacred oracle, saying with David: *You, O Lord, have broken the heads of the dragons in the water.* And let them also add in a loud voice the canticle for the exodus of Israel: *Let us sing unto the Lord, for He has been gloriously magnified.*
Having reached this point in my discourse, and turning my inward gaze to the height of the greatest wonders of God and the Lord, and of the all-holy and only Theotokos, I become speechless from amazement, not finding words equal to the realities. For what loud-voiced tongue can worthily praise the Virgin and Theotokos? How can it miraculously hymn her miraculous grace, and glorify the fountain of philanthropy, and render thanksgiving to the Mother of God? For B she herself, and her Son, are pleased by this much more than by the most musical songs of pipes and instruments. This, as I say, is love unfeigned, which is the sum of the law and the prophets; undiluted brotherly love; simple compassions; divine virginity; lawful marriage; irreproachable temperance; vigorous justice; steady fortitude against the passions; orderly prudence; bountiful almsgiving; humble continence; contrition, which moves one easily to compunction; and in addition to these, a life without blame; useful practices; a moderate demeanor; a sensible mind; a well-spoken mouth; a praising tongue; reasonable discourse; an eye that is not wanton; hands that are not unrestrained; feet that are not swift to evil; anger without lack of judgment or the impulse of fury dragging reason aside; and other things by which man, made in the image of God and ordered with God, is adorned as with a precious and beautiful jewel.
For through these things it was fitting to give thanks to the Theotokos; since those who are wise in these matters say that thanksgiving is defined by works and not by words. But since our nature is weak, and our intellect sluggish, making us C slothful toward the laborious path of virtue, and we touch upon it only lightly, as they say, with the tip of our finger, and for this reason we are insufficient to pay the debt of thanksgiving, we should at least bring the offering of mere words. Raising our voice, and lifting our minds on high, let us speak in this manner with a shout of joy: "You, O Lady Theotokos, having philanthropy by nature, have never ceased to provide for our race; but as a common mother of the race of Christians, loving your children and filled with maternal affection, you thus always bestow your benefits upon us, saving us, protecting us, guarding us, delivering us from dangers, and releasing us from temptations. We, in return for these things, give thanks; D we proclaim your graces; we do not hide your benefits; we sing your wonders in a loud voice; we glorify your care; we magnify your providence; we hymn your protection; we extol your aid; we celebrate your compassion; and remembering your gifts for the past, and from how many dangers we have been delivered through...
your favor, A we offer you this thanksgiving ode as a debt; not that it is worthy of your benefits—for what could be worthy of these?—but rather because the babblings of your children are dear to you. Since, however, we are oppressed by present troubles, we beseech your swift aid; we pray for your intervention to remove the stumbling blocks in our midst; to disperse the cloud and pitch-black darkness that hangs over us, by which, as in a nocturnal battle, we strike and are struck, or rather, to speak more accurately, like madmen we tear our own flesh, do not recognize our kindred, and know not our own people. B And who are we that dare these things? We are those who, by divine favor, have the same Father, one Christ, the same faith, the same baptism, one Church, and share in the same mysteries—not to extend our discourse at length. Wherefore we suppliantly beseech your clemency that you might have pity on your people and your inheritance, and stand as an advocate before the God born of you, our God; that you might assist us who are in extreme danger, and rescue us from desperate calamities. You see, O Lady, to how many evils we are subjected on every side. Arise, therefore, and do not reject us to the end. "Why do you turn your face away, and forget our poverty?" Dissolve the fears and tremblings that weigh upon us; take away the contentious disputes of those who oppose us; C cease the battles and the wars; calm the wrath and ruin of God stirred up against us; compose the seditions and disturbances in our midst; and grant tranquility and peace to your servants, so that, to those many benefits with which you have heaped us, this benefit also being added, we may celebrate your wonders with eternal praise.
Having brought our discourse to this point, and furling the sails of our speech, let us bring it to the safe harbor of silence, D again admonishing the gathered assembly not to appear ungrateful toward our benefactress and Lady, nor, when we have been affected by the benefits themselves, to neglect to offer at least thanksgiving in words—to whom, indeed, the advantage returns. For if we are thankful for what has already happened, we shall prepare for ourselves great boldness for future things, and attain to ineffable and hidden goods, by the grace and love for mankind of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and power unto the ages. Amen.
NOTICE
I present to you, candid Reader, a little work, neither inelegant nor foreign to the spirit of Christian piety, the beginning of which is such that you might immediately judge that Pisides had composed a hymn rather than a short poem. Yet, proceeding further, you will understand the occasion taken from the solemnity of the Lord's Resurrection: that he might adorn the son of the Emperor Heraclius with praises and, in the Christian manner—and by the grace of all good things, which is done even now—might send, as a kind of pious New Year’s gift, this small religious offering.
There is no mention of this little book in Suidas, who otherwise lists, among the works of Pisides, an *Encomium on the Martyr Anastasius* (found under the title *Encomium for the Martyr Anastasius*); because I could not find this work anywhere, I was moved to believe that it was a mistake of the writer, reading *On the Resurrection* instead of *On the Martyr Anastasius*. However, when I finally found in the codex of the Medicean-Laurentian Royal Library the *Encomium on the holy Anastasius* mentioned by Suidas, I was glad to reject my conjecture as a slight one. Nor is it surprising that Suidas passed over in silence this little book—which, although not unrefined or dull, is small in bulk—just as he silently omitted other minor works of Pisides among the fragments mentioned by us.
That it is Flavius Constantinus whom Pisides commends—the son of Heraclius—is evident from verse 64, in which he calls him "a wise offspring and a noble son": for the eldest son was certainly Flavius Constantinus, who was also called New Constantine, and he is clearly the same one to whom Pisides directs his discourse at the end of his poem *On the Abaric War* (v. 537), as we have noted there.
Furthermore, our poet, who always confirms his sermons with the testimonies of Holy Scripture, seems to explain opportunely that passage of Paul to the Romans (xiii, 11–12): "It is already the hour for us to rise from sleep: for now our salvation is nearer than when we believed. The night has passed, but the day has approached. Let us therefore cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light," etc. Thus he praises the Emperor Constantine and admonishes him how it becomes a Christian prince to progress in Christian virtue. For, by the proposed example of his father, he urges his son to guard the integrity of his morals, to apply himself to the study of eloquence, and to exercise himself in the arts of war.
These admonitions, however, Pisides was conveying to Constantine while Heraclius was fighting against Chosroes in Persia, as can be understood from verse 112 and following. From this, it is also evident that Pisides wrote this poem around the year of Christ 628, which was the reason it was placed here.
BY THE SAME ON THE HOLY RESURRECTION OF CHRIST OUR GOD
A Clad in white, creation now comes forth; For it puts off the darksome debt, And puts on the white grace of light. And all the nature of existing things rejoices,
NOTES
VERS. 1. Similar things to what Pisides announces, suffused with Christian piety and joy, are held by almost all the Holy Fathers. Compare Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Augustine, Saint Leo, and especially Saint Cyril of Alexandria, whose Homilies *On the Paschal Feasts* will shed much light on this poem. Sanct. Joan. Damascen. *Carm. in Theoph.*, tom. I, pag. 778.
Let all earthly nature be clothed in white, Lifted up now from the fall of the heavens. [And] let all earthly creation be clothed in white, Now raised above the heavens after the fall.
Saint August. *Enarrat. in Psal.*, tom. IV, pag. 1533. 2 The debt of the old Adam, Christ unbinds. See Saint Augustinus, *Enarrat. in Psal.*, tom. IV, pag. 1533.
A The foundation of those who had fallen rises again, And the darkness of profanations is wiped away. And now truly the darkness is illuminated, And the things of below draw near to those above. The partition is taken away, and the sting is destroyed. And all things are common, and the natures have come together. And the earth-creeping clay is betrothed to the heavens, And the Spirit receives the clay as a pledge. And one and the same [Being] both rules those above, And is embodied, and descends below. And the earthy substance becomes light, And the ashen soot becomes a vital flame. And fire, for our sake, is tempered with dew, And the intensity of the passions is burned away. For every spurious deception is smelted, B As some material mixed with gold. But thereafter there remains from the purifying fire, The gold, preserving the image it once had. Now the night of deceitful words has passed; Orpheus has grown weary, and has put aside his lyre.
NOTES. 1 Cor. xv, 55: “O death, where is thy sting?” The sting of death is sin. The Spirit of God, given to us as a pledge of the good things we await, also overturned the empire of death, and deposited the Holy Spirit in us as an earnest of future hope and a pledge of the good things we expect. Christ’s resurrection gives faith to the resurrection of the human body; for just as Christ rose with the body which he had assumed, so also we, dead in our sins, shall rise with Christ, whose members we are. The hope of the coming of the Holy Spirit, through whom the love of God is poured out in our hearts. “The night has passed, the day is at hand,” etc. Saint Cyril in his Paschal Homilies often uses this testimony of Paul, to demonstrate the greatest benefits bestowed upon the human race by the repairing Word. And indeed all the holy Fathers proved with invincible arguments against the nations that, after the death of Christ, the darkness and clouds of ignorance, that is to say of idolatry, which the devil had cast all around, had been dispersed; that the oracles had ceased; and that the empty wisdom of the philosophers had been refuted. I would appear prolix and insolent in a matter so clear and well-known, if I were to add more. These are the oracles, concerning which one should see Ant. Van-Dale, *De oraculis*; Georgius Moebius, *De orac. orig.*; Fontenelle, *Hist. des oracles*; and he who refuted Fontenelle, *Réponse à l'Hist. des oracles*. For these authors disagree among themselves, and one is contrary to the other. One thing, however, against Van-Dale and Fontenelle I will not omit to observe: that all the ancient ecclesiastical writers had for a long time been of the opinion that, not as they please to think, were the oracles merely the deceits of men, but that they were brought in by the devil—whom Tertullian rightly calls the ape of divinity. Wherefore let them beware, lest while they strive to remove this stigma from the devil, they weaken a most lucid testimony concerning the Divinity of Christ. In Saint Gregory Nazianzen, *Orat. 4 in Jul.*, p. 127: “No longer do the lecherous and deceitful demons rule; no longer is creation insulted by being worshipped in the guise of honor instead of God... Be ashamed at last before the books of your own Theologian... The oak no longer speaks; the tripod is silenced; the Pythia is no longer filled, I know not by whom, except by myths and nonsensical chatter. Again, Castalia is silenced and is quiet, and the water is not for divination, but for mockery. Again, the Apollo statue is voiceless.”
A The oak withers; the tripod is muted; Plato is silent, and the tanner speaks; Galen is sick, and our Peter puts the diseases to flight, he who weaves the nets, 34 expelling every human infirmity. And every disturbance of spirits is driven away; the mute speaks, and the paralyzed runs; to the deaf, the closed door is opened. By clay, the blind becomes eyed, and sees; the leper sheds his old flesh for new. By the Word, the four-day-dead man walks, and the ligaments of his limbs are assembled, though the corpse had already inclined toward putrefaction. And all creation glorifies the Creator, wearing the white garment of the heart. You too now bear a white heart, B for you do not have dark sins. Only he mourns and remains in black, the one who lay in wait at the beginning of the commandment. He grieves that the tombs are despoiled, and that the janitors of corruption are dead. On all sides, he gathers up the riches which he distributed for base causes, corrupting, drawing away, and pimping nature, mixing the drug of his speech with persuasion, and tempering bitterness with sweetness. Many cadavers, consumed by corruption, he vomits forth from his dark belly. C D
NOTES
Again, Daphne is a plant lamented by myth. 36. John 11:43: "Come out," etc. And ibid. v. 39: "Lord, by now he stinks, for he has been dead four days." 37. Ligaments. 41. He now turns his address to Constantine, son of Heraclius. 43. Wearing a black garment, and a tunic. St. John Damascene, Poem on the Theophany: "Creation is recognized as free, and those who were once darkened are children of light; only the prince of darkness groans. Death, which refused to be conquered, has been conquered; corruption has been done away with; death, an unconquerable evil, has been destroyed. But Hades, which, with insatiable greed, could not be filled by the infinite multitude of the perishing, learned even against its will what it could not previously persuade itself of; for the struggle is not only to seize those who are now dying, but it disgorges even those it already held captive, being brought into the beautiful solitude by the power of our Savior."
For when he had gorged himself immoderately, He contracted indigestion from the gluttony of the belly. A Hence he who was formerly rich, now walks as a pauper, For he who, like a thief, first plundered the goods of souls, Was thereafter more greatly plundered himself. He sighs deeply, for he had long ago Shown the Jews that other wood; For he would not have stirred up the envy for the killing of God, If he had known the cause of that murder To be the future resurrection of all. But oh, learned offspring, and newborn elder, Whom the swaddling bands of wise purple encompass, And who displayest for scepters the words useful for life, By which the world is defended from the disease of ignorance, And is more validly strengthened, Thou art truly the destroyer of the ancient serpent: For in thee there is nothing of his works: No foolish fury of wrath; no desire for silver, No base love, and one eager to bite; No hands prepared for receiving, that thou mightest do harm, But for giving, and for beating back that which does harm; No work of the night, but thy genius is a phosphorus, Shining in the night, just as light does by day; No pleasure in childish hippodrome races touches thee, Commingled with disordered voices and outcries. B Together with the horses they fly, they who delight in horses, They raise their hands in empty applause, And stretch forth their feet, and together with their eyes, Which you would think wanted to fall from their eyebrows, They extend their limbs, stretching themselves out, And loosen the entire positions of their members; And, having forgotten their own senses, They strike the air; and with their fingers They trace out disorganized races; They grasp at, and strike only at the shadow; And they shout vehemently to the drivers of the horses, Who, from this side and that, listen to nothing. C
For in the unstable course of the spectacle, A the states of mind of the spectators are unstable. With us, the mind is not receptive of wickedness; there is no malignant gaze, no useless speech; no swelling tongue, no unbridled laughter makes you show your teeth in reckless display. You have no bow, even though you are archers; it is not such a difficult thing to send an arrow straight at the wicked archer himself. As for the sphere, it is twofold: you play with one to exercise the body, but the other you hold with intelligence, B when, having extended your heart on high, you seek the arrangement of the celestial spheres. Thus you were shown to be a chosen vessel and a treasure of ancestral goods. Thus you have proceeded, a true Hercules in the matter, having taken the golden apples, the wise discourses, and cutting off all the perceived serpents, the beast-like necks of the dragon, which sprout up many times, but are as many times cut away by your practical reasoning. But prepare the shield of the word, so that before all you may be found the champion, explaining those labors of your father which, instead of everything, he daily performs, C toiling, worrying, suffering, being shot at; for the hopes of life kindle him. It is necessary for you, then, to prepare for arms and battles; for it is necessary to fight for those who love battles, so as to run like a Heraclid in the footsteps of the one who begat you.
NOTE. 116. While Pisida is writing this, Heraclius was fighting against Chosroes. Theophanes, p. 263, relates the manly courage of Heraclius in the conflict at the Euphrates, so that the enemy leader Sarbarus (Shahrbaraz), taken with admiration, said to one Cosmas, a deserter: "Do you see the Caesar, O Cosmas, with what daring he joins battle, and alone contends against so great a multitude, and spits out their missiles like sand?..." And although he had received many wounds, he had certainly sustained none with danger to his life. Nicephorus however, in his *Breviarium*, p. 13, records that he was wounded by the blow of a spear at the lips and the sole of the foot. See *Heracliad*, Acroasis 1, and Acroasis 2, for the name of Hercules and Heraclius by double allusion.
Take up the sharpened arms of the Father, Bring to an end the venom of the Persian viper, Crush the stings of the scorpions of the Ister. A You have allies ready for the need, Through whom you remain unwounded, having as armed men Those from Him who begat you immaterially. By whom having been conceived, you become more of a father, For the spirit that begets our carnal conceptions, Remains more of a father.
ADVERTISEMENT TO THE HEXAEMERON
The name of George the Pisidian, consigned to too long an oblivion, was finally made famous by the edition of the *Hexaemeron*, or poem on the work of the six days, which Frederick Morel adorned at the end of the sixteenth century, and it was then that it first became known almost to the whole literary world, as all learned men know, and we have explained this more clearly in our Preface. Although this very work was the first of all to be printed, we did not wish it to occupy the place of first rank, led primarily by the reason that it does not appear to have been written by our author before his other poems. For we believe that it can be conjectured from the fact that he had already completed the poems concerning the first and second expedition of Heraclius, which we have placed beforehand as *Acroases*, before he had published the *Hexaemeron*, because at the end of this poem, at verse 1867, it is read: for there he introduces Patriarch Sergius praying for Heraclius in this way:
"For thus will he have faithful marks of victory, Having been deemed worthy of a second victory against his enemies."
And thus he will secure the trophies of his faith, After the second victory gained from the enemies.
It is certain that this happened in the year of our Lord 628. Since, therefore, Heraclius had finished his expeditions against Chosroes when the Pisidian published the *Hexaemeron*, by right and merit, in order that the order of times might be preserved, the poems which treat of those things were to have been placed in the first seat, and this was entirely the proper place for the *Hexaemeron* to be assigned. Nor can it be of doubt to anyone that he whom the Pisidian represents to us, marked by great piety, at the beginning and end of his *Cosmopoeia*, was Sergius the Patriarch of Constantinople—for he was living in fame at the time when Heraclius defeated the Persians, and had not yet brought forth his impious opinion concerning the one will in Christ, but had only opened it secretly to his friends. For indeed, Sergius had given great hope for himself when, after the death of the most holy man Thomas, he was promoted to the patriarchate; for the Blessed Theodore of Sykeon had predicted that he C would be an excellent prelate, who, according to Eleusius, as attested by Surius in the *Life of Theodore* on April 22, comforted the citizens of Constantinople, grieving over the death of Thomas, in this way: "Do not grieve and complain, O men of little faith and faint-hearted; for he who is to be patriarch will love us no less," and then turning to Sergius, he said: "Strengthen yourself and be robust, and act manfully: for trusting in God, I hope your administration will be both long and illustrious." Worthily, therefore, was he deemed fit to be adorned by George the Pisidian with such praises, when he had not yet, like Saul, changed for the worse and become the leader and standard-bearer of the Monothelites, but was conspicuous for every kind of virtue. Certainly, the Pisidian shows him at the beginning of the poem to have been taught by Sergius and learned in mystical doctrines: for thus he addresses him at verse 32:
"I come bringing to you from the desert of my heart Fruits cultivated and irrigated by your dew."
I come to bring you from an uncultivated heart Fruits cultivated, and irrigated by your dew, etc.
He also shows the same man, famous for great piety and powerful with the wondrous virtue of prayer, at the end, where he introduces him praying silently and from the innermost recess of his heart, not articulately and distinctly; because, on account of abstinence and fasts, he was unable to utter words, at verse 1880:
"The patriarch cries these things, and says, Even though he is thin-voiced from fasting."
Thus the patriarch shouts, and says, Although he has a voice attenuated by fasts. But more things will occur to be said elsewhere about Sergius.
NOTICE ON THE HEXAEMERON
Now that these matters have been briefly established, there are three points which we propose for our consideration, in order that clarity may be shed upon the work of Pisida: 1) Who wrote on the Hexaemeron before or after Pisida. 2) How Pisida wrote on the Hexaemeron. 3) Against whom Pisida wrote the Hexaemeron. A Since there is, indeed, nothing more disposed toward order, nothing more suited to utility, nothing more adorned for beauty, and nothing greater in scale than the creation of the world, it is wonderful how many men of the highest renown have appeared in every age who have written about it, either out of a settled purpose, or because they were captivated by the wonder of so great a work, or inflamed by a desire for wisdom. For who could recount all the things that have been handed down from every side by ancient philosophers and poets—whether concerning theogonies, chaos, or the first principles of things, or concerning matter and the elements—ingeniously (if I should not say nonsensically), skillfully, or foolishly? From these, as if from the Alps, rivers of thought have sprung regarding the first origin and constitution of the world, and have propagated into various and manifold divisions of schools and academies B. But truly, while they contended with great contentiousness of spirit, seeming for the most part to be wise, they succeeded in ensuring that they did not really know anything at all. For vain indeed are all men in whom there is no knowledge of God (Wis. XIII).
We, therefore, willingly omit the commentaries of the ancient poets and philosophers. For we shall not praise Orpheus, who, according to Suidas, left behind [Greek text: περὶ θεογνωσίας λόγους], "Treatises on the Knowledge of God," and who, as some believe, is to be held as the first master of mystical doctrine among the ancients, although he was later than Linus; nor shall we mention Linus himself, whose student Orpheus was, who, while discoursing on the origin of the world, said that all things were created in a moment; nor Musæus, the disciple of Orpheus, who wrote nearly four thousand verses on the precepts of life [Greek text: κατ' αὐτὸν] deduced from the same source and principle; nor Thamyris the musician, a singer of most excellent form, whom Tzetzes (Chiliad VI, 108) records to have written a [Greek text: κοσμογονίαν πενταχιλίοις στίχοις], a creation of the world in five thousand verses; C nor Abaris the Scythian, whom Suidas testifies to have committed a [Greek text: θεογονίαν καταλογάδην], a Theogony, to writing in prose; nor Hesiod of Ascra, whose *Theogony* exists, nor his other most famous poem entitled "Works and Days"; nor Antimachus the Egyptian Heliopolitan, who, by the same authority of Suidas, concluded a [Greek text: κοσμοποιίαν ἐν ἔπεσιν ἡρωικοῖς], a Cosmopæia, in 3780 heroic verses; nor Ovid, whose *Metamorphoses* are in everyone's hands; nor, finally, shall we name the authors of that first, barbaric, and more elegant subsequent philosophy. But we deem that only those excellent men are to be recounted who chose Moses as their guide in narrating the creation of the world, so that the intention of Pisida in writing this poem may shine forth more clearly. But since the abundance of such writers is very great, and there is almost no one among the Holy Fathers and ancient writers who has not commented, either at length or in passages, on Genesis, D it is not in our mind to list them individually, especially since to unfold a long catalogue of them might seem superfluous, after much labor expended on this task by Sixtus of Siena and, more happily and accurately, by Jacob Le Long. We, however, thought it would be relevant to lightly touch upon those ecclesiastical writers only who, up to the thirteenth century, wrote on the Hexaemeron with the intention of refuting the folly of the Gentiles and the ravings of the heretics; but in order to serve the convenience of the readers and the clarity of the treatise itself, we have arranged the names of the authors and their writings into three classes, keeping to chronological order, distinguishing the works into those that are lost, those that are inedited, and those that are edited. And let no one say that we have acted unnecessarily; for although Sixtus of Siena, William Cave, Casimir Oudin, and Jacob Le Long may seem to have included all the works of the ecclesiastical writers in their own laborious and equally exquisite Commentaries, yet no one, of as many as have written on the Hexaemeron, has brought them all together in one place so that their purpose in producing these studies might be apparent, which we trust we have accomplished. Therefore, if there will be any utility from this for the readers, we hope that our diligence will be approved.
CLASSIS I. Commentaries of various authors on the Hexaemeron that are lost.
*Micropraegenesis*, or [Greek text: λεπτὴ γένεσις], *Parva genesis*, an apocryphal work, a fragment of which Lambecius testifies (in *Comment.*, lib. 1, p. 28) to exist in two manuscript codices in the Vienna Library. The most learned Albert Fabricius, in *Cod. pseudep. Vet. Test.*, vol. 1, p. 849, collected various passages from the writings of Saint Jerome, Zonaras, George Syncellus, Glycas, and George Cedrenus, in which discourse is made concerning the works of creation according to the authority of the lesser Genesis.
Papias the Asian, concerning whom Anastasius Sinaita (*Contemplat. Anagog.* lib. VII) says: [Greek text: ὁ πάνυ Ἱεραπολίτης, τοῦ ἐν τῷ ἐπιστηθίῳ φοιτήσας], "that most famous man of Hierapolis, who was a disciple of the Apostle who reclined upon the breast," wrote on the Hexaemeron, by the testimony of the same Anastasius, deflecting all things to Christ. Concerning this work, that it is the [Greek text: λογίων κυριακῶν ἐξήγησιν], the explanation of the divine oracles, which many testify Papias to have composed, it does not seem to be doubted, since Saint Irenæus (lib. v, cap. 35) notes that Papias wrote nothing else besides five books of explanations.
Saint Justin the Martyr, a Christian philosopher, who flourished in the year 140, wrote [Greek text: ὑπομνήματα εἰς Ἐξαήμερον], Commentaries on the Hexaemeron, from which some passages are found preserved in lib. VI of the *Contemplat.* of Anastasius Sinaita, which indeed J. Ernest Grabe published in Greek in *Spicilegium Patrum*, vol. II, p. 195.
Saint Pantænus, whom some make a Palestinian, others an Alexandrian, and finally others a Sicilian—because he is found called the "Sicilian Bee" by Saint Clement, *Strom.* lib. 1, who had him as a master—a truly most famous man, who became a Christian philosopher from a Stoic one, and who died in the year 213, wrote, by the testimony of Anastasius Sinaita (lib. 1), something on the Hexaemeron, though in such a way that he referred all things to Christ and the Church.
Saint Clement, his native land being Alexandria, or, as others prefer, Athens, who flourished toward the end of the second century, an [Greek text: ἱερὸς ἀνήρ], as Theodoret says (*Hæret. fab. lib.* 1, c. 6), [Greek text: καὶ πολυπειρίᾳ ἅπαντας ἀπολιπών], "a holy man, and one who excelled all in the abundance of his learning," wrote, in the mind of his teacher Saint Pantænus, the eight books of *Hypotyposes*, and [Greek text: περὶ τοῦ ἕνα εἶναι τὸν Θεόν], "that God is one and the same in the Old and New Testament," and a *Commentary on Genesis*, and a book *On Providence*; all of which, it is to be lamented, have perished.
Rhodon, born in Asia, who flourished about the year 189, wrote a *Commentary on the Hexaemeron*. Concerning him, Saint Jerome speaks thus in his *Catalogue of Writers*: "Rhodon, a student of Tatian in the times of Commodus and Severus, wrote elegant treatises on the Hexaemeron."
Saint Irenæus, born, as it seems, in Smyrna, a disciple of Saint Polycarp, bishop of the Church of Lyons, who flourished at the beginning of the century, wrote, as it pleased some in the time of Photius, a book [Greek text: περὶ τοῦ παντὸς οὐσίας], "on the nature of the universe." However, the same Photius (cod. 48) refutes this opinion, as we shall say presently.
Candidus, a contemporary of Saint Maximus, who flourished in the year
A 340, wrote one book, *On the Natures of Things*, in which he demonstrated that there was one beginning, and that nothing was coeternal with God. Gennadius, *De script.*, ch. 6. See *Hist. litter. Gallorum et Franc.*, vol. I, part I, p. 190.
Philo, ordained by Saint Epiphanius, bishop of Carpasia, who flourished toward the end of the 5th century, seems to have written something on the Hexaemeron. Cosmas Indicopleustes offers proof of this, by whom he is cited on page 330: Φίλωνος ἐπισκόπου Καρπάθου εἰς τὸ ἑξαήμερον, *Of Philo, Bishop of Carpathus, on the Hexaemeron.*
Ammonius, by birth an Egyptian, a monk of Alexandria, who, as Cave thought, lived in the late 4th century, wrote *Enarrations on the Work of the Six Days*, which Anastasius recommends in the prologue to his *Anagogical Homilies*, and also praises the same Ammonius in his *Hodegetes*, p. 278, calling him a most approved interpreter of the Alexandrian Church.
Q. Aurelius Prudentius Clemens, a Spaniard, a Christian poet, who flourished in the year 405, wrote in the Greek manner B a *Commentary on the Fabric of the World* up to the transgression of the first man, of which Gennadius makes mention, ch. 13.
Theodorus Syrus, of Antioch, first a friend of Saint John Chrysostom, bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia, who died in the year 428, wrote a *Commentary on the Hexaemeron*, or ἑρμηνείαν τῆς κτίσεως (*Interpretation of Creation*), distributed into seven tomes, as Photius says, cod. 38. That his works were once translated from Greek into the Syriac language is attested by Liberatus in his *Breviarium*, ch. 10. That the author of the translation was Ibas, bishop of Edessa, is evident from the 10th action of the Council of Chalcedon. See Assemani, *Bibl. Oriental.*, vol. III, p. 30.
Salvianus, born at Cologne, an Agrippinian, presbyter of the Church of Marseilles, who flourished in the year 440, wrote one book on the Hexaemeron, composed in verse in the manner of the Greeks. On the testimony of Gennadius, ch. 67. In an old Corbie manuscript, for "verse" (*versu*) there is "as of verses" (*quasi versuum*), which reading is very obscure. A certain anonymous writer in Tillemont, vol. XVI, p. 193, discussing Tertullian, suspects that this work of Salvianus might possibly be the *Poem on Genesis* which is numbered among the works ascribed to Tertullian.
Moses Bar-Cepha, a Syrian Jacobite, bishop of Mosul, who flourished about the end of the 9th century, wrote a *Hexaemeron* in Syriac. See Assemani, *Bibl. Orient.*, vol. II, p. 127. Cardinal Bona, in his *Analecta liturgico-sacra* (recently edited by Father Roberto Sala at the end of the *Select Epistles* of the same Cardinal), doubts whether he flourished about the year 480 and was a contemporary of Saint John Chrysostom.
B. Anselm, born at Aosta, C first abbot of Bec, afterwards bishop of Canterbury in England, who died in the year 1109, wrote one book on the Hexaemeron, if we believe Trithemius, who asserts this in his *Chronicon Hirsaugiense*, and Sixtus Senensis, who followed Trithemius, a fact which has not been observed by the nomenclators of ecclesiastical writers. In the older editions of Saint Anselm exist two books *On the Image of the World*, to which it is easy to believe Trithemius referred. Furthermore, Father D. Gabriel Gerberon suppressed these books *On the Image of the World* from his edition of the works of Saint Anselm, because it is not sufficiently certain to whom they belong: for as he himself observes in the beginning of vol. I, they are attributed to various authors according to the titles of different manuscripts. Father Echard, vol. I, p. 232, *De Script. Ord. Praedicat.*, proves by this one fact, from two previously unedited epistles, that the author is a certain person named Honorius, whether he be the English monk, as pleases Theophilus Raynaud, or the Augustodunensis, as Labbé contends.
Arnulphus Gallus, a monk of Beauvais, a disciple of Lanfranc, bishop of Rochester, who died in the year 1124, wrote two books *On the Works of the Six Days*, on the testimony of Le Long, vol. II, p. 616, who D
A considers that the *Neocosmos* of Honorius is the same work as his *Synopsis of the World*, or the books on the image of the world, which were once counted among the works of Saint Anselm and attributed to various authors, as was said above regarding Saint Anselm, and as must be said regarding William of Conches; this does not seem to admit of further doubt.
Bartholomew of Lucca (by syncope, Ptolemy), born in Lucca in Etruria, a disciple and companion of Saint Thomas Aquinas, who flourished in the waning tenth century, wrote a *Hexaemeron*, though P. Echard (vol. I, p. 543) confesses that he could not ascertain what sort of work it was or where it is to be found.
Zacchaeus of Sura, that is, from the city of Sura in Babylonia, wrote an admirable demonstration of the world, in Syriac, on the testimony of Ebed-Jesu in his *Catalogue of Syrian Books* (Assemani, *Bibliotheca Orientalis*, vol. III, p. 252).
Closing the class of lost authors, I mention what Suidas says about a certain Tyrrhenian regarding our subject, under the word *Tyrrhenia*—that he interpreted the creation of the six days fabulously at his own pleasure, yet in such a way that he clearly demonstrates he had read the history of Moses.
"An experienced man among them (the Tyrrhenians) composed a history; for he said that God, the Creator of all things, took pleasure in all His works for twelve thousand years, and distributed these among the so-called twelve houses. In the first millennium, He made heaven and earth; in the second, this visible firmament, which He called heaven; in the third, the sea and all the waters on the earth; in the fourth, the great lights, the sun and moon, and the stars; in the fifth, every living soul of birds, reptiles, and quadrupeds in the air, on the earth, and in the waters; in the sixth, man. It appears, therefore, that the first six thousand years had passed before the formation of man, and that for the remaining six thousand years the race of men would continue, so that the whole time of the consummation reaches twelve thousand years."
A man skilled in the history of these (the Tyrrhenians) wrote that God, the true Creator of all things, devoted twelve thousand years to the creation of this universe, and distributed all things into the twelve houses so called; and that in the first millennium He made heaven and earth; in the second, He made that firmament which is visible, and called it heaven; in the third, the sea and all the waters which are on the earth; in the fourth, the great lights, the sun and moon, and also the stars; in the fifth, every soul of birds, reptiles, and quadrupeds living in the air, on the earth, and in the waters. It seems, therefore, that the first six millennia passed before the formation of man, and that the human race is to endure for the remaining six millennia: so that the entire time of the consummation is twelve thousand years.
CLASS II.
Commentaries of various authors on the *Hexaemeron* not yet published, which however are known to be preserved in manuscript libraries.Aristobulus the Hebrew, a Peripatetic philosopher, whom Clement of Alexandria praises (*Stromata*, books I and V), and also Eusebius (*Praeparatio Evangelica*, book XIII, ch. 12), wrote and published commentaries on the explanations of Moses for Ptolemy Philometor. Whether this was that same Aristobulus mentioned in 2 Maccabees 1:10 is a subject of dispute among critics, among whom one should especially consult Joseph Scaliger in his notes to the *Chronicle* of Eusebius, and Joseph Poterus in the cited place of the *Stromata* of Saint Clement, book V. Some have thought B that no commentaries of Aristobulus are held in Florence in the codex of the Medici Library, nor in another codex at Mantua among the Benedictine Fathers; for Buxtorf long ago testified (p. 33, to the book *Gosri*) that a huge work of his, written in the Greek language, lay hidden in both places, a work which he claimed surpassed even Philo himself in doctrine and excellence, and which awaited no other than a suitable interpreter.
Saint Epiphanius, a Palestinian by birth, bishop of Salamis (or Constantia) in Cyprus, a most learned man, who flourished in the waning fourth century, wrote on the *Hexaemeron*, on the testimony of Anastasius Sinaita, book VII, by whom he is called most holy in word and deed. In the theological Greek manuscript codex 89 of the Vienna Library, there exists a work of Saint Epiphanius under this title: *A Review of twenty-two works of the Hexaemeron of the creation of the world*, as can be seen in Lambecius, book II, p. 196. Oudin, following Petavius, thinks that this work belongs to Epiphanius the Younger, who lived in the ninth century. I, for my part, would not wish to determine anything rashly, but since some writing of Saint Epiphanius on the *Hexaemeron* is cited by Anastasius, I judge that it should be inquired into more diligently whether that could be the aforementioned *Review of works*, etc.
Victorinus, born on the borders of Greece, bishop of Petovio in Pannonia, and martyr, who flourished about the year 290, wrote a treatise on the *fabric of the world*, which William Cave testified he had in his possession, transcribed from an ancient codex, and which he inserted at the year 290 in his *History of Literature*. However, he rightly understood that this was nothing other than a certain fragment from the commentaries which they say the holy martyr wrote on Genesis.
James the Wise, or the Great, citizen and bishop of Nisibis, who died in the year 338, is said to have written a *Hexaemeron*, or *History of the creation and of created things*, for Constantine in Syriac, which Cave and Le Long testify to exist in the Leiden Library, no. 87, and in the Colbertine, no. 2148. But it was first doubted by the illustrious Joseph Simonius Assemani whether all the works attributed to James of Nisibis by Gennadius ought rather to be credited to James of Sarug; when, however, he later understood that there truly existed certain codices which contained the *Sermons* of James of Nisibis, he frankly retracted his opinion. The aforementioned *Sermons*, rendered into Latin from an Armenian codex, were recently published by Nicolaus Antonellius, a man most esteemed for his ecclesiastical learning and the probity of his character, who was recently made a cardinal; from these, however, it is not proven that James of Nisibis wrote on the creation of the world. On the contrary, since Assemani testifies that at the end of the Nitrian codex 13 there appears under the name of James of Sarug a mutilated sermon on the work of the six days, it will no longer be a matter of doubt to whom the work on the *Hexaemeron* should be ascribed. Let him who wishes to know more about this matter consult the *Bibliotheca Orientalis*, vol. I, pp. 23, 339, and 488; and from there he will understand that there also existed another James, bishop of Edessa, called the Commentator, who is often confused with the Nisibene and the Sarugite, and who, as Assemani maintains (*Bibliotheca Orientalis*, vol. II, p. 295), wrote the *History of the creation* for Constantine which we mentioned above, and, on the testimony of Abulpharagius, likewise published commentaries on the *Hexaemeron*.
Stephanius, in his notes to Saxo Grammaticus (p. 11), mentions a manuscript *Hexaemeron* in heroic verse by Andrew, archbishop of Lund, who was famous 450 years ago.
Auxilius, whose country is unknown, who however lived in the waning tenth century and was ordained by Pope Formosus, wrote 157 chapters on the *Hexaemeron*: if, however, that Auxilius, to whom these chapters are ascribed in the manuscript codex of the Cassinese Library, is one and the same as the one we praise, concerning whom one should see the *Literary History of the French and Gauls*, vol. VI, p. 326. Certainly, no mention of this work exists among the catalogs of ecclesiastical writers, and not even in Dupin
A existing in the Royal Library of Paris, Renaudot testifies, vol. II, *Libr. Orient*. But it is not clear from the catalog of that same library whether it exists. However, it exists in Syriac in the Medicean Palatine library and in the Vatican. See Assemani, *Bibl. Orient.*, vol. III, p. 287, where he speaks most learnedly concerning Abulpharagius.
Ebed-Jesu, that is, Servant of Jesus, Metropolitan of Soba and Armenia, by the surname Bar-Bricha, that is, Son of the Blessed, a Chaldean by race, a Nestorian by sect, who lived at the end of the 13th century, besides other things which he states he composed in his *Catalog of Syriac Books*, wrote a book, the *Pearl of the Truth of the Christian Religion*, excerpts of which you have from a Vatican codex in Assemani, *Bibl. Orient.*, vol. III, p. [352]. In this work, the Metropolitan of Soba, who says he undertook that work at the command of the patriarch of his own people, discusses many things concerning God the creator of the world, concerning the Trinity, and concerning Christ, in the manner of Pisides.
R. Judah, son of Moses, son of Halaowa, wrote a small treatise on the works of the six days, which he testifies exists in the Urbino-Vatican library, nos. 22, 38, and 48, according to Le Long, vol. II, p. 807, from Bartolocci. Truly, these codices in the *Catalog of Hebrew Manuscripts of the Apostolic Vatican Library*, which Stephanus Evodius and Jos. Simon Assemani recently brought to light, exhibit a title different among them; for it is read there thus: Codex 22, 3: *R. Judah, son of Moses, son of Daniel the Roman, The Gate, or philosophical treatises from Sacred Scripture*, from which, however, you would find nothing but a fragment contained in three pages in this codex. Codex 58: *Three philosophical treatises by the same, the first of which treats of the work of the six days.* Codex 43, 2: *Aben Rasciad, or Averroes, the book on the substance of the heavens, or the celestial sphere, translated from the Latin idiom into Hebrew by R. Judah, son of Moses, son of Daniel.* The editors of the Vatican Catalog observed that this Judah in the codices prefers the name "the Roman" and "the Philosopher," and therefore Bartolocci wrongly made two Judahs out of one. Various works of the same R. Judah, called the Roman and the Philosopher, are indeed listed in the same Vatican Catalog, and of their number is a *Commentary on the work of Genesis, or of creation*, mutilated at the end, cod. Palatino-Vat. 191, 12, and *Exposition on the section in the beginning, a philosophical [work] which embraces the first five chapters of Genesis*, cod. Urbino Vat. 290, 2. Whether all these things are one and the same with the treatises enumerated above, let others judge.
D The *Work in the Beginning, on the works of the six days, in Hebrew*. Le Long, vol. II, p. 1046, testifies from Bartolocci that a book so inscribed exists in the Vatican Library, no. 1295. There is no doubt that the work cited by Bartolocci is an *Anonymous Cabbalistic Treatise*, distributed into three books, of which the third contains the history of creation, or of the works of the six days. This book is found in the Vatican Catalog referred to among the Palatino-Vatican codices at number 792. Nor is it a wonder that there is so great a variety of numbers, since it is certain that after Bartolocci, the order of the codices in the Vatican library was changed.
An explanation of the six days of creation from Ambrose, Augustine, and others exists in the library of Saint-Germain-des-Prés, cod. 500, asserts Le Long, ibid.; and many codices containing Rabbinic commentaries on Genesis are praised in the Vatican Catalog.
CLASS III.
*Commentaries of various authors on the Hexaemeron published in print.*Philo Judæus, an Alexandrian by fatherland, ἄνδρα τὰ πάντα ἔνδοξον, as he is called in Josephus’s *Antiquities* XVIII, 10, who flourished in the year of Christ 40, wrote Περὶ τῆς Μωσέως κοσμοποιΐας, *On the Creation of the World*, and also Νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίας, *Allegories of the Sacred Laws*, the first of those after the Hexaemeron.
A You have all these things in the editions of the works of Philo.
Theophilus of Antioch, the sixth bishop of the Church of Antioch after the apostles, who flourished in the latter part of the second century, wrote three books to Autolycus, in which he proves most convincingly that the history of Moses is as ancient as it is most true; he discusses the works of God most eloquently in the second book. These books of Theophilus have been published many times and were released once more to the light by Johann Christoph Wolf, with Greek and Latin text, Hamburg, 1724, in duodecimo.
Origen of Alexandria, called *chalkenteros* (man of brass/unwearied) because of the great effort he expended in writing, and *Adamantius*, a man of truly stupendous erudition, who died in the year 254, wrote Tomes, Homilies, and Scholia on Genesis. That the Tomes, or Commentaries, were written as an explanation of the Hexaemeron is deduced from the fragments which P. Charles de la Rue collected and prefixed to the beginning of the second volume of his most elegant edition of the works of Origen, which he dedicated to the truly supreme Pontiff, Clement XII. It is evident, however, that Origen was later rejected by all the Fathers for the reason that, carried away by a passion for allegory, he did violence to the Scripture; for he did not understand sensible heaven, nor earth, nor waters, nor plants as truly plants, nor stars as truly stars, nor anything else in accordance with the letter, as Anastasius Sinaita says in book VII of his *Contemplations*. Saint Basil had already censured this previously in Origen, in his 3rd Homily on the Hexaemeron.
Eusebius, called Pamphili, a Palestinian by birth, a man most famous for his piety and erudition, who lived at the end of the third and the beginning of the fourth century, wrote many things, as everyone knows, for the Christian cause, but he seems to have composed his fifteen books of the *Evangelical Preparation* (Προπαρασκευῆς εὐαγγελικῆς) with the intention of defending the truth of Mosaic history against pagan philosophers. These books are extant, edited under the care of François Viger, Paris, 1628, in folio.
Lucius Caecilius Lactantius, born at Firmum, called the "Christian Cicero" because of the elegance of his style, who flourished about the year 320, wrote seven books of *Divine Institutes*, one book *On the Anger of God*, and another book *On the Workmanship of God*. The works of Lactantius, all of which look to the creation and government of the world, having been pressed many times, have appeared again under the care of Nic. Lenglet Dufresnoy, Paris, 1748, volume II, in quarto.
Saint Eustathius, from Side in Pamphylia, bishop of Antioch, *aner homologetes kai ten pistin eusebes* (a confessor and pious in faith), famous for his confession and religious piety, as in Saint Athanasius, *Epistle to the Solitaries*, who flourished about the year 323, is said to have written *Commentary on the Hexaemeron* (εἰς τὴν ἐξαήμερον ὑπόμνημα), which Leo Allatius first published with very copious annotations, Lyon, 1629, in quarto. However, critical men—Tillemont in volume VII of *Ecclesiastical History*, Natalis Alexander in the fourth century, Cave and Oudin at the year 325, and Fabricius in book 5, chapter 21—all judge that this commentary is to be denied to Saint Eustathius, agreeing that it is a compilation of fables poorly stitched together from others' writings.
Juvencus, a Spanish priest, whom the ancients and modern authors alike praise as a not unremarkable poet, wrote a book on Genesis about the year 340. Edmund Martène first brought this to light in *Veterum Scriptorum*, volume IX, page 15. B
Saint Athanasius, archbishop of Alexandria, a judge of orthodox doctrine and a most vigorous defender, who flourished during the fourth century, wrote the *Oration against the Greeks* (Λόγον κατὰ Ἑλλήνων). Saint Jerome in *De Scriptoribus* mentions two books *Against the Gentiles*, which, however, it is determined are not different from those; one is written against the Gentiles, as was said, and the other is inscribed *On the Incarnation*. If we number Saint Athanasius among the authors dealing with the creation of the world, those who have read these golden writings of such a doctor will clearly understand why. He adorns the work of creation with wonderful eloquence, proclaims the omnipotence of God, and refutes the foolishness of the nations and the impiety of the Manichaeans, to such a degree that he seems to excel all others in treating this type of subject. They are extant in the first volume of the Parisian edition prepared by the Benedictine Fathers of St. Maur in the year 1698, in folio.
Saint Ephrem the Syrian, *ho thaumasios kai polygraphotatos aner* (that wonderful and most prolific man), born in Nisibis in Mesopotamia, deacon of the Church of Edessa, who died in the year 378, wrote an explanation of Genesis, which first appeared in Syriac and Latin, Rome from the Vatican press 1737, in folio. We have thought it right to include Saint Ephrem among the writers on the Hexaemeron, because his entire explanation of Genesis revolves around the works of the six days and is cited here and there by other authors treating the same argument.
Saint Basil the Great, a Cappadocian, citizen of Caesarea and Bishop, *aristos en pasi tou autou logous* (most excellent in all his discourses), as Photius says in codex 141, who died in the year 378, wrote nine Homilies on the Hexaemeron worthy of much admiration, to use the words of Suidas under the word *Basileios*. Cassiodorus, in *Divine Readings*, chapter 1, page 445, is the witness that these homilies were once rendered into Latin most accurately and elegantly by Eustathius. But there is not the same judgment regarding the elegance of this translation among all. Dionysius Exiguus also translated Basil's Hexaemeron, along with two homilies on the creation of man, which by some are attributed to the same Basil, but by others to his brother, Saint Gregory of Nyssa. Other versions of the Basilian Hexaemeron also exist, among which the better known is that of John Argyropoulos the Byzantine, which is found among the works of Saint Basil edited at Basel in 1565, corrected by Godfried Tilmann. The praised homilies are found at the beginning of volume I of the Maurist edition, Paris, 1721, folio. C
Saint Ambrose, Roman by origin, Gaul by birth, bishop of Milan, who died in the year 397, wrote on the Hexaemeron, or on the works of the six days, doing almost nothing else than to contract into four books, and put into Latin, what Basil had distinguished into nine homilies. For it is plain to one reading Basil and Ambrose that the latter followed the former entirely, and acted more in the role of an interpreter than an author, so that one sheds light upon the other. The six books of Saint Ambrose are extant among his works edited by the Maurist Benedictines, Paris, 1686, volume I, in folio.
Saint Gregory, brother of Saint Basil the Great, younger in birth, bishop of Nyssa in Cappadocia, *aner logiotatos, kai pases hyparchon paideias anapleōs* (a most learned man, and filled with every kind of education), a man, testifies Suidas under the word *Gregorios*, most eloquent and stuffed with all doctrine, who died at the end of the fourth century, wrote *Apologetic Explanation on the Hexaemeron* (Ἀπολογητικὸν περὶ ἑξαήμερον) to Peter, bishop of Sebaste, his brother, which Oudin suspects, on not sufficiently firm grounds, to have been falsely attributed to him. He also wrote homilies or orations *On the Creation of Man* and on those words of Scripture: "Let us make man in our image." All these are extant in volume I of the Works, Parisian edition, 1638.
Saint Gregory, born at Arianzus, bishop of Nazianzus, who is called *Theologus* by way of preeminence, died in the year 389. His 34th oration, which is the second *On Theology*, contains an explanation of the works of God, and in it are found many things which Pisides would seem to have imitated. It is extant among his works printed at Cologne, 1690, volume I, page 536. Nor does the same Gregory's heroic poem, titled *Apórreta, ē peri archōn* (Secrets, or on the Principles), differ much from the Hexaemeron of Pisides, if one looks at the force of the argument. D Nemesius, from a philosopher, it is said, made bishop of Emesa, flourished at the end of the fourth century; he seems to have been a contemporary and friend of Saint Gregory of Nazianzus; he wrote the book *On the Nature of Man*: as it i
A has been published after various editions, revised and illustrated with notes, in Greek and Latin at Oxford in 1671, in octavo.
Saint John, called Chrysostom on account of the marvelous eloquence he possessed, born at Antioch by the river Orontes, and later made archbishop of Constantinople, who died in the year 407, wrote 67 homilies on Genesis, of which the first 10 deal with the work of the six days. They are extant in volume II of the Maurist edition.
An anonymous author, who nevertheless seems to have flourished at the beginning of the fifth century, [wrote] a heroic poem *On Divine Providence*, using almost the same method as Pisida, dealing with the creation of the world, Providence, the Incarnation, etc. This work was formerly attributed to Saint Prosper of Aquitaine; but it is so far from being [the work] of that most holy man, who vigorously defended the name of Saint Augustine and his most sound doctrine on grace against the Pelagians, that all learned men believe it rather to have been composed by some Pelagian. It is extant in the edition of the works of Saint Prosper, Paris, 1711, in folio.
Severianus, bishop of Gabala in Syria, first a friend and later a rival and even an enemy of Saint John Chrysostom, who flourished around the year 401, wrote six orations *On the Creation of the World*. That these were excerpted from the 14 sermons on Genesis, which Alexius Brassicanus in his preface to *Salvianus* (1530) testified were extant in the Vienna Library among other works of Severianus, was perhaps correctly conjectured by William Cave, but those 14 sermons are not mentioned by Lambeck or Neissel. The orations *On the Creation of the World*, however, are read among the works of Saint John Chrysostom, Vol. VI, page 436, of the Maurist edition.
Saint Augustine B the African, born at Tagaste, bishop of Hippo, who died in the year 450, wrote two books *Against the Manichaeans on Genesis*, and a book *On Genesis to the Letter*, which he wished to be inscribed "unfinished," and 12 books *On Genesis to the Letter*. What the intention of that most holy and learned man was in writing these books in various ways on the same subject, he himself left testified in Book I of his *Retractations*, ch. 18, and Book I, ch. 24. All of these are extant, however, in the excellent Parisian edition of the Fathers of the Congregation of Saint Maur, Vols. I and III.
Eustathius, mentioned above regarding Basil, who is found called a deacon in the Colbertine Codex, as the most learned Julian Garnier asserts in Vol. I of the *Works of Saint Basil*, p. 631, flourished around the year 440, and was a contemporary of Sedulius. His translation from Greek into Latin of the 9 sermons or homilies of Saint Basil *On the Beginning of Genesis* is extant, much praised by Cassiodorus, ch. 1, *On Divine Readings*, under this title: *Latin Metaphrasis of the Hexaemeron of Saint Basil by Eustathius*; as can be seen at the end of Vol. I of the works of Saint Basil, Maurist edition.
Dracontius, as it pleases more people, [was] an inhabitant of Spain, certainly a presbyter of Toledo, who flourished in the year 440; he wrote a heroic poem *On the Hexaemeron*, of which there are various editions, the first being the Parisian of 1560. See below under Eugenius.
Claudius Marius Victor, C wrongly taken by many for Victorinus the African, a rhetorician of Marseille who died before the year 450, wrote three books of poems, or a *Commentary on Genesis*, which were published separately and are also extant in the *Bibliotheca Patrum*. Gennadius, in *De scriptoribus*, ch. 60, declared this little poem to be a work elaborated with the zeal of a pious mind, but supported by thoughts of little weight.
Saint Hilary, a Gaul, bishop of Arles, who died in the middle of the fifth century, is said to have written a heroic poem on the first chapters of Genesis. Sixtus of Siena was the first of all to attribute this short work to Hilary of Arles, although it has also been ascribed to Hilary of Poitiers. And Father Quesnel, following Sixtus of Siena, published this same poem, of which we are speaking, at the end of the works of Saint Leo, Vol. I, page 771, under the name of Hilary of Arles. But that it belongs neither to the one of Arles nor to the one of Poitiers was observed by the Benedictine Fathers in the *Histoire littéraire de la France*, Vol. II, page 272.
Alcimus Ecdicius Avitus, a Gaul, archbishop of Vienne, a not inelegant poet who died in the year 523, wrote one book on the beginning of the world and the creation of our first parents, covering the first three chapters of Genesis; this is the first of five books of which the poem titled *On the Origin of the World* consists. The works of Avitus that are extant first appeared under the care of Jacques Sirmond, Paris, 1645, and are contained in Vol. II of the works of the same Sirmond. Among the lost works, however, Cave lists one book of *Homilies on the Beginning of the World*. That he badly derived this information from Saint Gregory of Tours, *Hist.* lib. II, cap. 34, is shown by the Benedictine Fathers in the *Histoire littéraire de la France*, Vol. III, page 152; for they affirm that the homilies are separate and distinct from the treatise *On the Beginning of the World*.
Theodoret, by nation a Syrian, from Antioch, and bishop of Cyrrhus, who died in the year 457, wrote *Graecarum affectionum curatio* (The Cure of Greek Maladies), divided into 12 sermons, of which the second deals with the beginning, the third with the Angels, the fourth with matter and the world, the fifth with the nature of man, and the sixth with the providence of God. They are extant among his works edited by Sirmond, Paris, Vol. IV, page 461.
Cosmas the Egyptian, an Alexandrian, first a merchant, later a monk, called *Indicopleustes* because of the Indian regions he traveled, who flourished around the year 535, wrote the *Christian Topography*, which the most learned Father de Montfaucon edited in the *Collectio nova Patrum*, Vol. II, page [blank]. We rightly count him among the writers of the Hexaemeron: for the Christian Topography is nothing other than a most eloquent explanation of the creation and an apology of Moses against the Gentiles.
Zacharias, by profession a scholastic or rhetorician, metropolitan of Mytilene, who flourished around the year 540, wrote the *Dialogue against a disciple of Ammonius*, who, struggling to reconcile Plato with Aristotle, wrongly asserted the eternity of the world. This book was edited in Greek and Latin at Leipzig, 1654; and with Origen's *Philocalia*, Paris, 1649, in quarto.
Junilius, an African bishop who flourished around the year 550, was reported to have written on the first three chapters of Genesis; or rather, commentaries on the Hexaemeron, which are counted among the works of Bede, to whom they truly belong. They were published under the name of Junilius, Basel, 1536, in quarto, and elsewhere. See below under Bede.
Eugenius the Spaniard, bishop of the Church of Toledo, the second of this name, who flourished around the year 650. He augmented the work of Dracontius and polished it so much that, according to Ildefonsus, ch. 44, it seems to have proceeded more beautifully from the hand of the reviser than from the hand of the author. Eugenius also added a heroic poem *On the Work of the Seventh Day*, which Dracontius had left imperfect; it was published by Jacques Sirmond, Paris, 1619, in quarto, and is also found among the works of the same Sirmond, Vol. II.
John, called Philoponus D on account of his abundance of writings and labor, by race an Alexandrian, a grammarian by craft, who lived during the sixth century, wrote 6 books of *Commentaries on the Mosaic Creation of the World*, which were published in Greek and Latin with the version of Balthasar Corderius, Vienna, 1630, in quarto. Of this work and its author, more will be said below.
George Pisida, whose works we attempt to illustrate,
A comes here to be reviewed. What pertains to his life you have in the beginning; what pertains to the explanation of his poem on the Hexaemeron, you will find subjected to its proper places passim.
Anastasius Sinaita, a most celebrated presbyter and monk, who is someone other than the two Anastasii, bishops of Antioch, and who flourished in the middle of the seventh century, being called by recent Greeks *Neos* (the New), wrote εἰς τὴν πνευματικὴν ἀναγωγὴν τῆς ἑξαημέρου κτίσεως λόγους ιβ', *Twelve Books of Anagogical Contemplations on the Hexaemeron*, only the last of which was published in Greek at London in 1682, in quarto, with the version of André Dacier; the first ten, however, exist rendered in Latin in the *Bibliothecae Patrum*, and they are kept in manuscript in the Royal Library of Paris, and the Bavarian, etc. See Fabricius, who discusses this Anastasius excellently in *Bibliotheca Graeca*, lib. v, cap. 34 and 35.
S. Isidore, called Hispalensis, who flourished at the beginning of the seventh century, wrote the book *De natura rerum, sive de mundo* [On the Nature of Things, or On the World] to Sisebut, King of the Visigoths. B It exists among his works published under the care of J. Grial, Madrid, 1599. In this treatise, he does not contend against heretics as other ecclesiastical writers do, but only in the scholastic manner expounds his opinion on the world and its parts, which he nevertheless confirms passim with the authority of the Holy Fathers: so that if you compare what is read there with those things that are in books XI and XII of the *Etymologies* and those following, and combine them, you will clearly understand what the manner of philosophizing in the West was at that time, and you will frankly confess that it differs little from the doctrine of the Oriental philosophers.
B. Flaccus Alcuinus, or Albinus, an Englishman, born in the province of York, the restorer of letters in Gaul after Charlemagne, abbot of the Coenobium of S. Martin at Tours, who died in the year 804, wrote *Interrogationes, et responsiones quaestionum in Genesim* [Questions and Answers on Genesis], which he dedicated to his brother Sigulfus, as he himself testifies in the letter prefixed to the questions, as well as on that verse of Genesis *faciamus hominem* [let us make man], etc. Which C youthful works are found at the beginning of the works of Alcuin edited by André Duchesne.
Remigius, monk of the monastery of S. Germain d'Auxerre, of the Order of S. Benedict, who after the year 882 was called by Fulco, Archbishop of Reims, to govern the school there, wrote an *Exposition on Genesis*, which was published in the *Thesaurus Anecdotorum* of Bernard Pez, Vol. IV, part 1, col. 1.
Beda Venerabilis, an Englishman, Benedictine monk of Jarrow, who flourished around the beginning of the eighth century, wrote a *Hexaemeron* and an *Exposition on Genesis*. Both works exist in volume IV of the Cologne edition of 1688. He also wrote three books on the beginning of Genesis up to the birth of Isaac and the ejection of Ishmael, which Cave testifies are in manuscript at Lambeth in the archiepiscopal library, and their first part, containing an *Exposition on the Hexaemeron*, is the same one that appeared under the name of Junilius in the *Orthodoxographa* and in the earlier editions of the *Bibliotheca Patrum*. Henry Wharton published the three complete books from the Lambeth Codex at London, 1693, in quarto. Edmund Martène later published more emended versions in the *Thesaurus Anecdotorum*, Vol. V, pag. 115.
Angelomus, monk and deacon of Luxeuil, of the Order of S. Benedict, who flourished in the year 825, wrote a commentary on Genesis, where there is much on the work of the six days. D It exists in the *Thesaurus Anecdotorum* of P. Bernard Pez, vol. 1, p. 45. The Benedictine Fathers deal at length with Angelomus in *Histoire littéraire de la France*, vol. V, p. 136.
Fridugisus, an Englishman, disciple and follower of Alcuin, and his successor in the prefecture of the Coenobium of Saint Martin of Tours, who died in the year 834, wrote a *Letter/Treatise on Nothing and Darkness*, etc. See the aforementioned *Hist. litt.*, vol. IV, p. 514.
Vandelbertus, monk and deacon of the monastery of Prüm, and likewise a rhetorician and poet, famous in the late tenth century, wrote in verse a *Libellus de creatione mundi* [Booklet on the Creation of the World], which the Fathers of the congregation of S. Maur, who state it was unpublished, vol. V, p. 582. For it exists in the new edition of the *Spicilegium* of Luc d'Achery, vol. II, p. 62.
Rabanus Maurus, born at Mainz, disciple of Alcuin, first abbot of Fulda, later Archbishop of Mainz, who died in the year 856, wrote twelve books *De universo* [On the Universe], written indeed in a dry style, and elaborated in the manner of grammarians, but written with the zeal of explaining Holy Scripture; and likewise *Commentaries on Genesis*. They exist in the collection of the works of Rabanus edited at Cologne, 1627.
Hildebertus Gallus, monk of Cluny and Bishop of Le Mans, who died in the year 1135, wrote in elegiac verse *De operibus sex dierum* [On the Works of the Six Days], and in heroic verse *De ordine mundi* [On the Order of the World]. Both poems exist among his works edited by the labor of Antoine Beaugendre, Paris 1708, but you should also see Leyser in *Historia poetarum medii aevi*, p. 591 and 598.
Arnaldus, Abbot of Bonneval in the diocese of Chartres, a contemporary of Saint Bernard and especially dear to him, who lived around the year 1140, wrote a *Tractatus de operibus sex dierum*, which we have noted above under Arnulphus, Class 1, to have been wrongly attributed by some to Arnulphus of Beauvais.
Hugo Gallus, Archbishop of Rouen, who flourished around the year 1140, wrote a *Tractatus in Hexaemeron*, a fragment of which Edmund Martène published from a manuscript of Rouen in *Anecdota*, vol. V, p. 4002.
Petrus Abelardus, a Gaul by nation, Abbot of Saint-Gildas, a most famous man, who died in the year 1142, wrote an *Exposition on Genesis*, namely the work of the six days, which the same Martène made public in *Anecdota*, vol. V, p. 1136.
Vincentius Burgundus, called Bellovacensis, because he lived and died in the monastery of the Dominican Friars of Beauvais, who flourished in the year 1240, wrote the *Speculum naturale*, or *On the Sayings of Innumerable Authors both Christian and Gentile on the Hexaemeron*, an immense volume in thirty-two great books: this *Speculum* was published at Venice in 1591 in folio. Many things about Vincent can be found in the *Bibliotheca sancta* of Sixtus Senensis, p. 489, and in the *Bibliotheca of the Dominican Fathers*, vol. I, p. 212.
R. Moses Maimonides, of Cordoba, also called Moses the Egyptian by his own people, a man most celebrated among the Jews, who flourished during the twelfth century, wrote in Arabic a work with this title, *Sepher More Nevuchim*, that is, *The Book of the Guide of the Perplexed*, the third part of which deals with the work of the six days. Concerning this book of Maimonides, which Pliny once affirmed of Diodorus Siculus, that he was the first among his own to cease trifling, the French Jews took care that it be burned as being contrary to Jewish superstitions, but the Spaniards preserved it. It was first rendered from the Arabic into the Hebrew language by R. Samuel bar Judah Aben Tibbon, who was a disciple of Maimonides, and shortly after translated into Latin. It exists in Hebrew among the works of the same R. Moses edited at Amsterdam in the year of the world 5461, that is, of Christ 1701, folio, and it was made Latin again and edited by Johannes Buxtorf the younger at Basel, 1629, in quarto.
R. Meir bar Todros, Levite, a Jew of Toledo, who died in the year 1244, wrote *Hortum palatii* [Garden of the Palace], a cabalistic book for interpreting the section *Bereshit*, with a commentary by R. Shem Tob and R. Jacob bar Todros. Le Long testifies that it was printed at Frankfurt am Main, vol. II, p. 856 and 957.
Saint Bonaventure, an Etruscan, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, Bishop of Albano, who died in the year 1274, is said to have written an *Exposition* or *Eighteen Sermons on the Hexaemeron*, which appeared at Rome in 1588, in octavo. But the one who recently procured a new edition of the works of Saint Bonaventure, in the *Diatriba* which he prefixed to the first volume published at Venice in 1751, points out that these commentaries are spurious, and unworthy, especially because of the barbarity of the style, of being attributed to such a great doctor.
R. Levi bar Gershom, or Gersonides, who in the century
that was passing, wrote the book *The Wars of the Lord*, divided into six parts, in which he treats philosophically of matters pertaining to the faith. The sixth part of this book, which was printed at Riva di Trento in 1560 in folio, treats *On the Creation of the World, and whether the world was eternal.* See Bartolocci, *Lives of Famous Rabbins*. This manuscript book is preserved in the Vatican-Urbino Library among the Hebrew Codices, no. 28.
II. *How Pisida wrote about the Hexaemeron.* These, therefore, are the ecclesiastical authors who wrote on the Hexaemeron up to the thirteenth century, whom we have collected for this reason, that he who wishes may more easily compare the things which Pisida puts forward in this matter with the Commentaries of others. It was not our intention to institute a formal disputation on each one; but we think this one thing should be observed here: that as many as applied their soul and mind to the treatment of this subject, whether they inscribed their books *On the Hexaemeron, and the works of the six days*, or *On the World*, *On the nature of the universe*, *On the craftsmanship of God*, *On the fabric of the world*, and *On creation*, all of them tended toward the goal of refuting the errors of the nations regarding the origin of the world, establishing the providence of God, confounding the insane ravings of astrologers, asserting the resurrection of the dead after the final judgment, and showing that the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ was foreshadowed in the Mosaic History: whence, justly and deservedly, they are to be numbered, along with George Pisida, among the writers who fought for the truth of the Christian religion.
A Now, what the opinions and judgments of the Holy Fathers were, to be set forth in the explanation of the birth of the world by Moses, must be inquired into a little more diligently; for although that could be extracted by many most illustrious men, and especially by Fr. Nicolas Le Nourry in his *Apparatus to the Library of the Max. Fathers*, by Fr. Baltus in *Defense of the Holy Fathers accused of Platonism*, by J. Franc. Buddeus in *Introduction to Historical Theology*, vol. I, p. 478, and vol. II, p. 802, and by Jacob Brucker in *History of Critical Philosophy*, vol. II, p. 189, and vol. III, p. 278, all of whom discourse from the foundation regarding the study of philosophy among the first Christians; yet we deem it necessary to touch upon some points here, so that what Pisida intended in writing his Hexaemeron may be made clear, which indeed is not sufficiently manifest to one reading his poem for the first time. Therefore, it can be hidden from no one imbued with ecclesiastical antiquities that the ancient Christians held in contempt whatever was disputed by the pagan philosophers concerning created things, and that they not only neglected their opinions as trifles and the ravings of old men, but even refuted them with the utmost intensity of spirit, and handed them down as fables to be received with laughter. That this was indeed done by them with excellent counsel is distinguished from their writings, either because they understood the opinions of the philosophers to be futile and resting on no firm foundations; or because they felt them to be false, for the most part clashing with one another, impious, and contrary above all to the most holy utterances of Moses; or finally for the reason that they thought it unseemly for Christian men to taste of earthly things, who ought to investigate only heavenly ones. For this reason, those were called philosophers among them who cultivated divine things in their heart; so much so that it is a most firm fact, which has been observed by many, that the philosophy of the ancient Christians is the very same as theology. This St. Clement of Alexandria declared most openly, *Strom.* lib. VI, p. 768, saying: B *Philosophi apud vos quidem vocantur, qui sapientiam illius amant, qui rerum omnium est opifex, et magister, hoc est Filii Dei cognitionem.* Philosophers are called among us those who love the wisdom of Him who is the maker and master of all things, that is, the cognition of the Son of God. A most famous testimony to our point is that of St. Basil, who, touching upon some things regarding the shape of the earth in *Homily 9 on the Hexaemeron*, and confessing that he could affirm nothing because Moses had not said a single word on that matter, says: "Shall I, because of this, consider the oracles of the Spirit to be inferior to a wisdom that has been shown to be foolish, after occupying our mind with vain things, but rather [believe that] all things were ordained to be written for the edification and perfecting of our souls?" Did I therefore seek to judge the utterances of the Holy Spirit as inferior to infatuated wisdom? Shall I not rather give glory to Him who did not detain our mind in the occupation of vain things, but decreed that all things be written down for the edification and perfection of our souls?
Nevertheless, it is proven, both from the most eloquent Apologies written against the heathens and from their various most learned Commentaries and other shining testimonies, that the Holy Fathers did also, to some extent, devote effort to earthly philosophy and praised it. And as regards what pertains to their institutions concerning philosophy, it was the opinion of many—an opinion which by no means differs much from the opinion of others who liked to assert that they were pure and simple Platonists—that they followed the Eclectic opinions of the Platonic school, which began to shine at Alexandria toward the end of the second century and the beginning of the third, under Pota- none, or rather with Ammonius Saccas as the initiator, and became most famous throughout the whole world thenceforth. However, if we wish to weigh the matter with a straight balance, we shall not hesitate to confess that both are false: for it could not possibly happen that most holy men, who condemned all the philosophy of the nations, should have chosen to approve that sect above all others, than which none was ever more pestilent and more hostile to the Christian name. For all know that, by the impious renegade from Christ, Ammonius, and his successors in the Alexandrian school, Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Julian the Apostate, Proclus, and others, it was most craftily adorned to the fraud and ruin of the Christian religion, with deceits, lies, prestige, and calumnies piled up on all sides. Since indeed those most wicked men felt themselves to be unequal to refuting the force of the truth, they collected from here and there the opinions of the Egyptians, Chaldeans, Plato, and Aristotle, and brought them into agreement with one another; and even, having torn some things from Christian doctrine and carried them off into their own storehouse, as it were forcing them by the neck, they fashioned a new system; yet in such a way that the authority of pagan philosophy always remained intact: and only then did they subject this monstrous beast to Plato and sell it under his name, so as to deceive the Christians. For they knew well that Plato was the one among the Philosophers whom the Christians would least despise.
But indeed, that the Fathers and Christian teachers were Eclectics, inasmuch as they thought it right to follow no one at all from the ancient philosophers in elucidating physical matters, I myself would also willingly affirm; but that they gave their name to the Alexandrian Eclectic sect, I do not see by what arguments it can be proven, since it is sufficiently manifest from the contrary D that they rose up fiercely against it, and fought vigorously against it, and finally gained the victory with much praise. I would not hesitate, however, to call them Platonists, if he who calls them Platonists understands only this: namely, that in the judgment of the Fathers, Plato, of all the philosophers, held a better opinion concerning God, and philosophized more sanely and soberly about divine matters—for the reason that they believed he had drawn his own doctrine from the Hebrews. Whence I would not deny that it came about that they converted certain Platonic opinions, and many notions especially of metaphysical things, perhaps even too confidently, to their own use—not to approve the ravings of the Eclectic Platonists, or to consent to their fallacies, but to accommodate themselves to the capacity, or rather the genius, of the age, which they indeed believed they were doing innocently and laudably; for as St. Augustine says in *De Civitate Dei*, book VIII, chap. 10, Christians were often seen to think with Plato, because Plato seemed to depart least from the Christians: this is the reason why we prefer these over others; because whereas
A other philosophers have spent their talents and studies in seeking out the causes of things, and the manner of learning and living, these, having known God, discovered where the cause of the universe was established, and the light of truth to be perceived, and the fountain of drinkable happiness. Therefore, whether these Platonists, or whoever else among the philosophers of any nation hold these things about God, they hold opinions with us. But it is for this reason that we have preferred to deal with this matter alongside the Platonists, because their writings are better known, etc. B Furthermore, it is manifest from very many places—which P. Baltus has collected in an entire book dedicated solely to the defense of the Fathers against the charge of Platonism—that the Fathers did not even spare Plato. We, therefore, discussing the philosophy of the ancient Christians as the occasion requires, since there have existed, even to our own time, the greatest disagreements and varied contentions among great men—some accusing the Fathers as guilty of Platonism, others defending them—think that such a dispute will be judged without any difficulty. For we think it cannot be denied that the Fathers appear here and there as Platonists in the commentaries they have left behind. For although there are six hundred testimonies by which someone could prove that they were not addicted to any sect, not even the Platonic, there exist nonetheless another six hundred from which it can be proven that they savor of Platonism. Therefore, the difference, as it seems to us, between the Eclectic Alexandrian Platonists and the Fathers who savor of Platonism is sufficiently clear and evident: that the former had sprinkled into the philosophy of the Gentiles certain seeds taken from Evangelical doctrine with no other intent than that, under this pretext of piety, they might more easily deceive Christians, while confirming themselves more and more in their own errors; C whereas the Fathers, on the contrary, since they embraced only the wisdom of Christ, defended that most firmly; but they did not disdain to use, as occasion demanded, the phrases, locutions, and sometimes even certain dogmas of the Eclectics, either because they did not perceive that fraud lay therein, or because that manner of speaking had grown strong in philosophical matters. Therefore, whoever undertakes to read the writings of the Fathers, if he looks only at the skin, so to speak, and the color, will judge them to be Platonists themselves; but if, the matter having been better considered, he inquires into the flesh and blood, he will find only Christians. The spirit, therefore, not the sound of the words, the mind, not the letters, are to be weighed in the reading of the Fathers. This I could easily confirm from their own testimonies, but in order to satisfy the reader, I will produce only one from Saint Clement of Alexandria, who, since he set out from the Alexandrian school, and plainly declares by what name he wishes to be called an Eclectic, concludes and demonstrates the whole matter: D "I do not mean the Stoic philosophy, nor the Platonic, or the Epicurean and Aristotelian; but whatever has been said by each of these sects that teaches righteousness with pious knowledge, this entire eclectic collection I call philosophy; but whatever has been cut off from human reasonings and corrupted, these I would never call divine." (Strom. lib. 1, p. 338.)
Now, indeed, these things having been lightly touched upon concerning the philosophy of the Fathers in general—which can contribute not a little to illustrating the writings of Pisides—let us see what notion they themselves had concerning physical matters: which is what we must consider above all, speaking of the Hexaemeron. And first I confess that I do not come unwillingly to the opinion of those who contend that Physics, or natural Philosophy, was utterly neglected by the Fathers, which matter Buddeus in *Isagoge Hist. Theol.* vol. 1, cap. 5, p. 502, and Brucker in *Hist. Crit. philos.* vol. III, p. 356, took upon themselves to prove. Nor will anyone wonder that we grant this, since we have the Fathers themselves confessing it. Furthermore, when they themselves had known how impious and how ἄτοπα [absurd] the Gentile philosophers were—who used to retail their wares concerning the origin of the world, the providence of God, the stars, the immortality of the soul, and all things both mundane and celestial more curiously than was needed—and found nothing in the sacred Scriptures that offered an approach to deducing the causes and origins of things, they most willingly repudiated all this science as most vain, recalling to mind what Paul defined in 1 Cor. 1:19: ἡ γὰρ σοφία τοῦ κόσμου τούτου μωρία παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ ἐστι, "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God." Let him who wishes read the Commentaries of the Fathers on the Hexaemeron, and he will find that they all agree on this one thing: that they should condemn excessively curious investigations about natural things, and refute the ravings of the Gentiles with long disputations. Indeed, while I greatly admire all those who wrote Apologies for the Christians in the first centuries of the Church against the subtle trifles and sophisms of the philosophers, I wish here to praise one above the rest: Eusebius of Caesarea, who treated this matter most brilliantly in his great and indeed laborious volume of the *Evangelical Preparation*. A
Therefore, it is no wonder if the Fathers, relying on the force of arguments, quickly extricated themselves from physical questions; although if, having laid aside party zeal, we compare the light interpretations of the Fathers with the monstrous and portentous fictions of certain ancients, as well as of more recent ones, concerning the origin of the world, it might seem doubtful whether their modesty, which frankly confesses its own weakness, is to be praised, or the rashness of those who boldly boast of their own perspicacity is to be condemned. But the causes why the Fathers appear less acute in physical matters, I think are these: I) because, as was said before, they abhorred as much as possible the errors which Ethnic writers put forward when discussing the creation of the world; II) because the study of natural things was even then less in honor among philosophers of any sect, and disputes were entered into only concerning things pertaining either to the mind or to manners; III) because Christians, especially having been illuminated by the rays of evangelical doctrine, held nothing more sacred than to bring everything to a certain norm of religion and to bend any matters whatsoever toward a moral sense; IV) because there was nothing more ancient to them than to follow Moses and to embrace only Hebrew philosophy. And these, indeed, I think to be the four Canons as it were, by which the writings of the Fathers concerning physical things can be read and defended. The recently praised Eusebius of Caesarea has encompassed the whole matter, who, having exposed the trifles and disagreements of the Greek philosophers, and shown how deservedly Christians cleaved to Hebrew doctrine, thus concludes in lib. xv, cap. 61: "Do we not then seem to you to have rightly retired in judgment and reason from the useless and manifold vain labor of all these things? And to be not at all busy with said things? For we see nothing in them that is advantageous and that directly tends toward utility and the procurement of good for men; but only to hold to the piety concerning the Creator God of all things, and through a sober life, and the rest of a life pleasing to God according to virtue, to be eager to live to the God of all?" Do we not, therefore, seem to you, once our judgment is formed and the reason perceived, to have rightly departed from such an empty curiosity for things altogether useless and teeming with errors? And that we are rightly not solicitous of those things said? Since we see that there is in them no fruit, no utility, nothing that contributes to the possession of good: and we embrace that one piety which looks to God, the Creator of all things, and [to] the study of a chaste life.
A A specimen of this kind of Christian Physiology indeed, as has been observed by Buddeus, is exhibited by the work *Physiologus, recounting the nature of every kind of wild beast and bird*, which exists among the works of Saint Epiphanius (vol. II, p. 189), with notes and a version by Gontali Ponce de León, who labors much, but in vain, to defend the fables that are read in this little work. For it is completely riddled with inept interpretations and allusions that are derived from the peculiarities of animals and twisted toward theological senses. This is a flaw that certainly affects the writings of all the Fathers who have concerned themselves with treating the same subject. For unless you view it with a desire for piety, you will perhaps find nothing else in them to admire; since everything in such commentaries is discovered to be examined not by a goldsmith’s scale, but by a certain popular balance.
These things, moreover, which have been said thus far concerning the philosophy of the Holy Fathers, will also easily be felt to have been said of the philosophy of Pisides by anyone who is not hindered from reading the following poem. For in the various poems of Pisides, and especially in the *Hexaëmeron*, those four things that we recently observed to be common to the Fathers B can be discerned most easily. For he shows himself not to be alien to the tenets of the Platonists; II) he fights most powerfully against those philosophers who assert the eternity of the world, and in this one thing he directs all his strength as if toward a goal; III) he treats of plants and animals, somewhat coolly indeed, but nonetheless most profusely; IV) he does not weigh and examine everything with the severe judgment that is the duty of a philosopher, but rather deflects them toward theological and mystical meanings by way of trifling interpretations taken from vulgar fables. Let it be sufficient to have indicated here these four things, as the principal characteristics of the philosophy of Pisides; for we are about to bring forward more things C in the annotations that make the matter clearer.
But there is one more thing we think it especially necessary to notice before we proceed to other matters, namely that Pisides was born into times in which the Eclectic-Platonic philosophy, after having long occupied the minds of all and raised itself to the highest degree of honor and fame, was finally cast down from its height and dislodged, and compelled to yield its place to the rival Aristotelian [philosophy] and to seek for itself a kind of asylum within the cloisters of monks; which is known to have happened toward the end of the fifth century and the beginning of the sixth. For the hatred which Christians had previously conceived against Peripatetic philosophy, on account of its many widely wandering errors, gradually cooled and was later so extinguished that it could first raise its head from the ground; and, having little by little gathered strength, with the hatred already turned into admiration, it dared to occupy a tyranny of which, once gained, it retained its savage and violent dominion through the various changes of affairs almost down to our own times. Nevertheless, Pisides does not follow and approve of Aristotelian doctrine so closely that one might rightly call him an Aristotelian: for he more than once refutes the Stagirite and his opinions on physical matters, as can be seen at verse 574, where he treats of hail; although he does not offer us better things of his own than those which he condemns. It is clear, however, that he professes himself rather a Platonist, and only unwillingly accommodates himself at times to the decrees of the Aristotelian school. I would not hesitate to affirm that he did this out of a zeal to meet the philosophers of his own time; because he knew how much those who followed Aristotle relied on their own wits and powers, what new opinions each one invented for himself at will in controversies—even in Ecclesiastical ones—and how cunningly they strove to peddle their sophisms to others. To this is added the fact that Aristotle was held by Christians to be the prince and coryphaeus among those who fought for the eternity of the world. D
III. Against whom Pisides wrote the Hexaëmeron.
Guillelmus Cave, Casimirus Oudin, and other scholars have held it as a certainty that George the Pisidian wrote his poem *On the Work of the Six Days* against John the Grammarian, surnamed Philoponus, under the disguise of the name Proclus, to such an extent that they considered this Hexaemeron to be the same work that Nicephorus (book XVIII, 48) records the Pisidian to have written against this very Philoponus. But besides the fact that the iambic verses in which Nicephorus says the Pisidian attacked Philoponus concern the poem *Against Severus*, and not this subject at all, as we demonstrated in the Preface; the whole matter appeared to us, upon other arguments as well, to be less than true; wherefore we deemed it worth our while to consider the matter a little more attentively. For unless we weigh carefully those things which pertain to Proclus, Philoponus, and the Pisidian, it will in no way be possible to extract any certain truth from it. And regarding Proclus himself, who, because he was in the succession of the Platonic Alexandrian Academy, was called Diadochus, it would be long to relate everything, nor does our present situation permit it. Let him who wishes consult Joan. Albertus Fabricius, *Bibl. Graec.*, book V, part IV, p. 455, and Jac. Brucker, *Hist. Crit. Philos.*, vol. II, p. 318, who discuss his life and writings with a great abundance of erudition.
One thing that is important to note here is that the name of Proclus was odious to all Christians, because he was an impious man who emerged from the Alexandrian school and, following the example of Porphyry, most impudently attacked the Christian religion. As a witness for this matter, I will appropriately cite Suidas, who speaks of Proclus thus: A *This is that Proclus, the second after Porphyry to have moved his foul and abusive tongue against the Christians; against whom John, surnamed Philoponus, wrote most admirably, meeting him with his eighteen arguments, and showing him to be, even in those Greek disciplines about which he greatly prided himself, unlearned and foolish.* This is that Proclus who, second after Porphyry, sharpened his impure and petulant tongue against the Christians. Against him wrote John, surnamed Philoponus, who refuted his XVIII arguments with admirable dexterity, and showed him to be ignorant and endowed with little judgment, even in those Greek disciplines in which he boasted of his skill. Some have believed that Proclus impugned all Christian dogmas with these XVIII arguments, but others have more correctly thought that he directed his whole force toward this one thing: to demonstrate that the world was eternal. If any others among the Christians refuted Proclus's arguments, Philoponus did this most of all, "most admirably," as the recently praised Suidas affirms. There exist even now the eighteen solutions of Philoponus, *Against Proclus on the Eternity of the World*, published in Greek and Latin, from which it is clearly evident that Proclus directed his XVIII arguments against the Christians only with the intention of asserting that the world was eternal, and that Philoponus, contending for the Christian cause, refuted Proclus's arguments.
And that Philoponus in this matter was in disagreement with Proclus is shown by his extant D seven books of *Commentaries on the Mosaic Creation of the World*, which appeared in Greek and Latin in the translation of Balthazar Corderius, Vienna, Austria, 1630, and were to appear again, could the most learned man Peter Lambecius have completed the supplement to the *Bibliotheca Patrum* which he was contemplating; for he had promised that he would provide a new edition of this work from the same Viennese codex that Corderius had used, in book I, page 138, because he thought Corderius himself had performed the duty of interpreter poorly, whose carelessness—or rather, ignorance—in translating Greek is also noted by Joan. Bapt. Cotelerius in his *Notes on the Monuments of the Greek Church*, vol. III, where he demonstrates that he erred often and shamefully. Therefore, in these books of *Commentaries*, which Philoponus wrote principally against Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia, he contends to prove the oracles of Scripture. Nor does he in his writings so much defend Aristotle, as some have liked to assert, as he damns Proclus, because he misunderstood Plato and wished to infer through captious syllogisms, from the very doctrine of Plato, that the world was eternal. For Philoponus truly asserts this most strongly: that Plato, behind whose armor Proclus seemed to fight, did not write everything out of theological subtlety, but often followed the custom of poetic fables, and did not say what he himself believed, out of fear of the Athenian populace. Wherefore it is clear that Philoponus departed for a long-different opinion from Proclus, since he also openly impugned him in these *Commentaries*.
And Photius, that judge of keen intellect, had already even then, from the ancient times, read Philoponus's *Hexaemeron*, and found it free from all error. B *He was read*, he says, cod. 43, *the work of Philoponus on the Hexaemeron. And there is in this book, [an author] who is pure and clear, and in his mode of expression superior to himself; and he agrees in almost most things with Basil the Great.* We read John Philoponus in *Hexaemeron*, in which book he is pure, and clear, and proves himself by his mode of speaking: and perhaps he consents in much to Basil the Great. Photius confirms this judgment of his in cod. 240, in which he brings forth some excerpts from the work of Philoponus, by which he proves that he looked toward this: to show that the origin of the world in Moses corresponds with apparent things. But whoever reads the *Commentaries* of Philoponus will feel that Photius judged most correctly; for he will find him occupied wholly in this, that he might demonstrate that Moses did not propose to himself trivial questions to write about, but wanted to lead men to the knowledge of God, and to instill divine cognition into unrefined minds, and nothing else besides those things which appear to those who understand: whence he proposes this one thing to all to be looked into in Moses, *Comment.*, book II, C *inquire only, if he has not written consistently with apparent things*, that is, let it be inquired only whether Moses wrote things consonant with apparent realities.
On the interpretation of the work of the Six Days
Therefore, there seems to be no reason thus far by which it can be said that George the Pisidian, under the name of Proclus, attacked John Philoponus with his iambs in his *Hexaemeron*, since the Pisidian openly attacks Proclus, and Philoponus, as is evident, drew his pen against that same Proclus. But these things must be looked into more closely, lest we ourselves be deceived by the praises with which we have recently seen Philoponus commended. Wherefore Philoponus is no longer to be compared with Proclus, but with the Pisidian, so that it may be known what each has performed. But indeed, if anyone finds it irksome to be delayed any longer in establishing this examination, let him hasten to other things; for we do not delay for those who are fastidious, perhaps about to find favor with more refined men, to whom it will not be displeasing to find here many things not alien to our subject, and not yet well weighed and judged by anyone: especially since the affinity and rationale of the argument compel us to give here in advance some things which elsewhere ought to have been said to illustrate the poem of the Pisidian *Against Severus*.
As many, therefore, as have written about Philoponus and George the Pisidian have handed down that they were peers in age and mutually opposed to each other. But since both of them seem to have written about the same things, and, as one might judge from the very titles of the books, led by the same spirit, I myself wondered how these things could be reconciled with each other. For we know that Philoponus published the above-mentioned *Commentaries on the Creation of the World*, and also the eighteen solutions *Against the Arguments of Proclus*, and likewise another book *Against Severus*, [i.e., *Against Severus of Antioch*], which Suidas mentions in the entry for *John*. And yet George the Pisidian also wrote *On the Creation of the World against Proclus*, and likewise *Against Severus*, and yet everyone agrees that one and the same Philoponus is being attacked by his iambs. What of the fact that both Philoponus and the Pisidian...
A to be attributed to our times, making him an octogenarian, and counts him among the long-lived philosophers? Or who could understand that Nicephorus testifies that Philoponus published a book to defend the Monophysite heresy, and yet that he attacked Severus, who was another parent of these same Monophysites after Eutyches? All of which matters, we believe, must be investigated and brought to greater light as much as lies in us.
And first of all, it must be seen in what age Philoponus lived. Regarding this matter, we think nothing more certain can be brought forward than what Photius asserts in Codex 24: that he read *books bearing the proceedings held before John, bishop of the Queen of Cities, in the time of Emperor Justin; which proceedings were established between Conon and Eugenius the Tritheites, and Paul, and Stephen, and they themselves, who were of the number of the hesitating ones*. These were the acts of a disputation initiated before John, bishop of the royal city, during the reign of Justin, between Conon and Eugenius the Tritheites, and Paul and Stephen, who were themselves of the number of those who were wavering. But Philoponus is considered the author of the Tritheites and was judged before John Scholasticus, and his impious doctrine was first refuted; therefore, Philoponus was flourishing around the year 565, at which time John Scholasticus occupied the Constantinopolitan throne. But those who think that the age of Philoponus should be extended to the sixth century are accustomed to rely on another argument. This, indeed, seems to us quite weak, nor is it consistent with the other things which are narrated about him. There is, to be sure, a very widespread little history about the miserable disaster and burning of the Alexandrian Library, which Abulpharagius recounts. For Alexandria, having been captured by the Saracens under the leader Amrus—which was the most ample seat of all erudition, and especially of philosophy, and which contained countless libraries collected together in one place—was petitioned by John Philoponus, so that the philosophical books, as many as might be found in the royal treasuries and libraries, might be granted to him. Amrus said that he must write to the Caliph Omar about this matter, and brought back the famous response from Omar, that *as for the books you mentioned, if there is contained in them what is in agreement with the book of God, namely the Koran, it is in the book of God, which is sufficient without them; but if in them there is anything which is repugnant to the book of God, there is no need for them on our part. Therefore, order them to be removed from the middle.* Amrus therefore ordered them to be dispersed throughout the baths of Alexandria, and to be burned for the purpose of heating them. In this way, in the space of half a year, concludes Abulpharagius (*Hist. Dynast.*, p. 114), they were consumed. Hear what was done and marvel, etc. The most illustrious men, Pococke (*Specim. hist. Arabum*, p. 163), Renaudot (*Hist. patriarch. Alexandr.*, p. 170), Fabricius (*Bibl. Gr.*, tom. IX, p. 359), Brucker (*Philos. crit.*, vol. III, p. 30 and 530), and many others, did not doubt to accept the testimony of Abulpharagius and to subscribe to it. But if this is true, Philoponus was still living after the year 641 of Christ; for in that year the leader Amrus, instructed by Saracen forces, occupied Alexandria. However, we believe that this could not have happened for a long period, because it would have to be said that Philoponus had extended his life to an excessively long time. Certainly, if a disputation was instituted against Philoponus before John Scholasticus, who was patriarch of the royal city from the year 564 to the year 567, it must be admitted that his name had already been famous for a long time, and that he had acquired such praise and fame in the Alexandrian Academy that he had followers and agents of his errors at home and abroad. Let us therefore grant that Philoponus, at the time when his doctrine was being disputed, was forty years old, and that this happened shortly before the death of John Scholasticus; seventy-four years still remain before we arrive at the times of the Saracen invasion of Africa, which occurred in the year 641. Thus, if this manner of calculating is observed, Philoponus would have lived beyond the one hundred and fourteenth year. Brucker sensed the difficulty (*loc. cit.*), but with his early age contracted, which we
But so that we may not seem to dissent rashly from these most illustrious men, let the arguments that can confirm our opinion be brought forward. It has been observed for a long time by many that one should not rely too much on Arabic and Syriac writers: for they have used neither a selection of facts nor refined judgment in explaining external matters, and they have often thought they had done something great if they told things that were incredible rather than true. No one would say that Abulpharagius himself is exempt from this blemish; and that he is not consistent with himself in what pertains to Philoponus is evident, if we are not mistaken, from the *Specimen of the Syriac Chronicle*, which the often-praised Jos. Simonius Assemanus—from whom as many as are lovers of ancient things seek and expect many such matters—published in *Bibl. Orient.*, tom. I, p. 328. For there, Gregory Bar-Hebraeus (who is also called Abulpharagius) writes the following things relevant to our subject: *In these same years the heresy of the Tritheites became known, the parent of whom was John Ascusnaghes, which you may rightly interpret as "Utris-fundum"*. Indeed, he was a disciple of Samuel, the Syrian father from Rhesina in Mesopotamia, a learned man, who for twenty years in Constantinople studied the entire erudition of the Greeks. With that teacher of his now dead, John occupied his chair; and when some time later he was admitted to the emperor and was asked by him about his religion, he answered: *I profess one nature of the incarnate Word of God, but in the Trinity, according to the number of persons, I reckon that there are three natures, essences, and Deities.* On account of which he was punished by the emperor with exile. John of Asia wrote, however, that we were chiefly brought into disrepute for his sake: inasmuch as he professed himself to be from us, and not from the Dyophysites. Through these times, Empress Theodora had a certain nephew by her daughter named Athanasius, who was educated under Amantius, a monk of Edessa, and Sergius the presbyter, who was the patriarch of the orthodox. He similarly, having rejected the communion of the Chalcedonians, stumbled into their heresy when he was a simple brother, and he had as associates in his error Conon of Tarsus and Eugenius from Seleucia of Isauria; but also John the Grammarian, nicknamed Philoponus, an Alexandrian, when he had begun to shine with ecclesiastical erudition, finally embraced the same opinion. Thereafter our people were split into two factions, and very many of ours adhered to the Chalcedonians, as they said, *It is better for us to admit two natures with them than four natures with these.* Finally, when John Utris-fundus, having been rebuked by the Great Theodosius, persisted in his error, he was cast out from the Church, and shortly after died. Then, indeed, Athanasius the monk, compiling the demonstrations composed by Utris-fundus into one volume, sent it to Alexandria to John the Grammarian, who is also Philoponus, who wrote a treatise on that opinion and sent it to Athanasius. Once the matter was known, the Alexandrians condemned the book and its author at the same time. Moreover, when the Tritheites perceived that the hatred of all was aroused against them for that cause, they supplicated the emperor that their cause might be debated in a public judgment. That indeed was entrusted to the patriarch of the Chalcedonians, and at the same time it was cautioned that he should not adduce the testimonies of the Dyophysite Fathers in that disputation, but only those of Severus, Theodosius, and Anthimus. Therefore, the Diacrinomeni, that is to say, our people who confess one nature in Christ, were cited by the patriarch and appeared on the appointed day. Equally, their adversaries were present; and the parties of those, namely the Tritheites, were defended chiefly by Conon and Eugenius. For the orthodox stood John of Asia and Paul, the successor later on to Sergius the patriarch. There was a disputation for four days before the patriarch of the Chalcedonians, etc.*: These are the words of Abulpharagius; after which, Assemanus bearing witness, he proceeds to report that, the Tritheites having been convicted in that disputation, a heresy of that kind was also extinguished.
A
It was not long, however, before he heard his name among Christians, when he himself began to handle sacred matters: and the event proved that the suspicion was not groundless. For afterwards, John the Grammarian—whom Photius (cod. 55) would rather call a "vain-laborer" (μαιοπόνον) than a "lover-of-labor" (φιλόπονον), or mad rather than industrious—dared to utter things abhorrent to catholic doctrine. Whence the same Photius (cod. 21, 23, 55, and 65) often censures and condemns his impiety, as does Nicephorus (lib. xvi, from cap. 46 to 50). And indeed with good reason: for the profane man dared to involve himself in ecclesiastical disputes, and, having first embraced, as it seems, the opinion of Severus, he fought along with him against the Chalcedonian Fathers; but then, carried away by a new flood of errors, he rose up against Severus himself, and at the same time against the Orthodox: for as Photius (cod. 55) testifies, he shamelessly sharpened his pen "against the holy and ecumenical fourth Synod" (κατὰ τῆς ἁγίας καὶ οἰκουμενικῆς τετάρτης συνόδου); and he likewise published another little book (βιβλιδάριον) "on the dogmas concerning the holy Trinity" (περὶ τῶν δογματισθέντων περὶ τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος) against those things which John Scholasticus, Patriarch of Constantinople, had taught concerning the Holy Trinity in his Catechetical Sermon. And of this kind was the writing to which Philoponus gave the title *Diætetes*, the arbiter of opinions "de unione naturarum in Christo" (περὶ ἑνώσεως), in which he audaciously established what should be believed by all. B To these is added an impious work divided into several volumes "de resurrectione" (περὶ ἀναστάσεως), in which, in the judgment of Photius (cod. 21), he "subverts the resurrection of bodies, and says many things inconsiderately" (τὴν τῶν σωμάτων ἀνάστασιν ἀναιρεῖ, πολλά τε ἀπερισκέπτως λέγει). Therefore, the heads of the errors in which he remained obstinate are gathered to be these, as much from Photius as from Nicephorus: first, that against the authority of the Holy Fathers, whom he mocked, he produced into the world a new opinion about the resurrection of the dead, dreaming it himself and raving; so much so that even Theodosius the monk, as well as three of his own associates, Conon, Eugenius, and Themistius, sharply attacked him and affirmed that he had departed from the Christian faith. Second, that he shamelessly wrote against the fourth synod, and did not blush to tear apart, by a certain little book, the Catechetical Oration which John Scholasticus delivered for a certain dogma concerning the holy and consubstantial Trinity, affirming that three natures were to be professed in the Holy Trinity; whence it happened that Paul and Stephen, also his associates, departed from him. Thus, he was indeed led into false opinions and turbulent errors; but since he wished neither to reveal himself openly nor to remain entirely hidden, he did not write things consistent with one another, and sometimes he published something sound and pure in his writings, while at other times he softened his own poison with subtleties of argument and fallacies, so that it is not at all clear what he intended. Photius had long since noted this, who in cod. 75 declares him so insipid and weak in his arguments that he could not color his own sophistries against the pious even with a shadowy appearance of truth; nor does he any less unmask his fraudulent talent, counting it as a fault that he claimed the writings of others as his own, and so corrupted them that what was genuine and robust in the authors themselves perished, having been depraved by him; and although he brings forward testimonies of the Holy Fathers, such as Gregory, Basil, etc., they are, however, such as in no way promote his impious cause which he has proposed. C From this malice of Philoponus, therefore—from his unstable faith and fraudulence, by which arts especially it was always customary for both ancient and modern heretics to rely—we judge it happened that he published some things to the light which would remove the suspicion of error from himself, while others revealed his intent, which was not alien to a straight faith, through certain empty tricks and quibbling fallacies. His writings confirm this: for he wrote *Against Proclus* for no other reason, it seems, than to show that he disagreed with him on the highest matters; or to show forth his own Cosmogony according to M.. D
oses against Theodore of Mopsuestia, except to correct the things he had argued vainly in his book *On the Generation of the World*. Nor did he write against Severus with any other intention than to lead him from one error to another, since he no longer favored him. Certainly, the consensus of all orthodox writers is that Philoponus fell away from the faith of the Catholics, which Suidas admits. Although all those works by which he attacked Christian doctrine have perished, there remain certain remnants in the acts of the First Council of Constantinople, and in Nicephorus, book xviii, chapter 47, as well as several fragments in Saint John Damascene *On Heresies*, which Cotelier had long ago edited in *Monumenta*, vol. I, p. 509, and which were later republished and donated to us by the illustrious P. Le-Quien in the new edition of the works of Damascene, vol. I, p. 101. From these it is certainly gathered with what justification Photius said of Philoponus that he "is a trifler and prattles nonsense," and is "bold," and how rightly Anastasius of Antioch preferred to call this book of Philoponus not a "mediator" but a "separator," as Saint Maximus testifies, vol. II of his *Works*, p. 124. For I shall say nothing about the sum of Philoponus's doctrine, which Assemani affirms is contained in the Syriac Vatican codex in the *Dissertation on the Monophysites* prefixed to volume I of the *Bibliotheca Orientalis*. However, one thing clearly demonstrates that Philoponus could hardly, if at all, have escaped notice while he lived; that is, the fact that when he had long since died, he was finally condemned along with other heretics. For at the council held at Constantinople in the year 681, the *Synodica* of Sophronius, Archbishop of Jerusalem, was read, in which it is said: "Let Severus be anathema above all... Theodosius of Alexandria... John the Grammarian, he who bears the surname Philoponus, or rather *Mataiophonos* (vain-laborer), and Conon and Eugenius, those three thrice-cursed champions of Tritheism," A over all be and Severus anathema... Also Theodosius of Alexandria..., John the Grammarian, by surname Philoponus, that is, the studious, or rather the *maleoponos* (evil-laborer), namely the trifler, Conon also, and Eugenius, who are the thrice-accursed champions of the triple Deity. And let this suffice to have said regarding the doctrine and ravings of Philoponus, lest we create disgust in our readers. Yet we shall still observe that it has been handed down by all ecclesiastical writers, as a certain and indubitable fact, that John Philoponus was the parent of the Tritheist heresy. But only Abulpharagius makes John Aschusnaghem, or "Utris-fundum," the author of his sect; unless we wish to add Leontius the Byzantine to Abulpharagius, who in the book *On Sects*, act 5, seems to assert that the sect of the Tritheites was restored by Philoponus rather than founded; for he says that while Theodosius of Byzantium was still active, the dogma of the Tritheites was born anew, of which sect—that is, the renovated one—Philoponus stood as prince. But let us grant, if you please, this glory to Abulpharagius, that a Syrian man was the first to introduce this putrid opinion into the world: certainly it was Philoponus who keenly defended it and confirmed it with various writings, whence he has always been held as the prince of the Tritheites, and in the *Ecclesiastical History* of Dionysius the patriarch, in Assemani, *Bibl. Orient.* vol. II, p. 80, he is called the Director of this heresy.
But to return to that from which we departed, if it is evident from what has been brought forward that Philoponus was already advanced in age when he began to shine in ecclesiastical erudition—for before that he had been occupied for a long time and much in grammatical and philosophical matters—who would assert this, that he who had already been called to trial in his advanced age before John Scholasticus before the year 567, had later reached the year 641? But if there be learned men who do not wish to agree with us, they will clearly reply that it could not have happened otherwise, if it is true that John Philoponus undertook his *Cosmopoeia* at the urging of Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and dedicated the finished work to him: for B Sergius indeed succeeded Thomas in the archbishopric in the year 610: whence he who inscribed his work to him, at least, was living in that year; and if he was living then, he could even have reached the year 641. But let us try to solve the knot if we can. In our opinion, that Sergius who was the author and persuader to Philoponus to write *On the Hexaemeron* was not the Patriarch of Constantinople who succeeded Thomas, but another Sergius of the same name, who was indeed a patriarch, but an Antiochene, and indeed a Monophysite, or Jacobite. Those who make him Constantinopolitan rely on the authority of the title, which they say the Commentaries on the Cosmogony of the same Philoponus, edited by the care of Father Corderius, bear upon them, which they wish to be inscribed to Sergius the Constantinopolitan Patriarch. But Corderius never said they were dedicated to Sergius of Constantinople; and if he had said so, he would have affirmed it relying on his own judgment rather than the authority of the Vienna Codex: since the most learned Lambecius, in his *Commentarii in Bibliothecam Cæsaream*, lib. I, p. 139, left it testified to us that the very codex which he had transcribed lacked a title. "It is to be noted," he says, "that Corderius, in this first printed edition of this work, erred in some places, as is evident even from the very title, which is commonly read thus: *John Philoponus, Seven Books on the Cosmogony.* But in the manuscript codex itself, the inscription of the first book is this: *John, the First Consultative Discourse on the Cosmogony of Moses according to the interpretation...*," whence it follows that the general title of the whole work, which is now missing there, was once conceived thus: *John Philoponus, Seven Consultative Discourses on the Cosmogony of Moses.* Therefore, if neither the title of the book names Sergius of Constantinople, nor does Corderius affirm it—for he seems rather, in his brief Preface, to have been in doubt as to who that Sergius might have been—the whole argument deduced thence collapses. For in the proem, Philoponus clearly addresses a certain Sergius, but he does not call him the Patriarch of Constantinople; for he says: "But especially you, O head most honorable to me, Sergius, and the greatest ornament among those who serve God as high priests, you have pressed me much, urging—nay, almost forcing—me to contribute whatever power I have to this matter. The participator in this study was Athanasius, one no less illustrious in piety than in lineage, who, like a lion's cub, ran toward virtue together with his pupil: for a mind senile in the study and exercise of oratory makes even youth most venerable." From which words of Philoponus we shall soon elicit some things that will confirm our opinion. But what shall we say here of Photius, who in codex 65 has it thus: "Read from the *Hexaemeron* of John Philoponus: that he addresses the work to Sergius of Constantinople, and by his urging he undertook this labor"? C But to reject the most explicit testimony of Photius, as it seems, would be a matter full of rashness; yet we confidently affirm that not even Photius gave the title of Constantinople's patriarch to the Sergius whom Philoponus praises, but that an error crept into the text due to the carelessness of librarians, which we shall prove below.
But a still greater difficulty arises from the writings of Philoponus himself. For he himself seems, in his *Commentary on Book IV of the Physics* on time, to define quite clearly at what age he lived. Behold the words: "We say, in fact, that the present year, month, and day are upon us; the year is the 333rd year of Diocletian, the month of Pakhon, the day..." D
A ten. With this testimony, as is evident, our opinion regarding the life of Philoponus—whom we say did not reach the beginning of the 7th century—is most openly refuted. But that here a mistake has crept in is something everyone will easily admit if they learn that the matter is not thus in another testimony of the same Philoponus. For in his book *Against Proclus* on argument XVI, 4, he says: "For even now, in our time, in the 245th year of Diocletian, the seven planets have appeared in the same sign of Taurus, though not in the same degree." For now, in these our times, in the year 245 of Diocletian (529 A.D.), all seven planets were in one and the same sign of Taurus, even if not in the same degree. Certainly, either the text in the former testimony is corrupt, or Philoponus himself was writing in 529 and in 617; but who could believe that of him? The most perspicacious Fabricius (Bibl. Gr., vol. IX, p. 363) noted the difficulty, for there was a difference of nearly one hundred years; but since he had also accepted the story about the burning of the Alexandrian Library, which Abulpharagius relates occurred in Philoponus’s time, he preferred to approve the first rather than the second of the testimonies brought forward, when he ought to have rejected the first and embraced the second instead. Therefore, we do not admit the version which he proposes on his own authority to reconcile Philoponus with Philoponus; for he wishes the words "for even now in our time in the year..." to be taken more loosely, and advises that it should be translated as "for even long from our times, in the year," etc. But it is clear that Philoponus is speaking of his own times, not of times long past, as Fabricius pretends. And it would certainly have been much easier to doubt the veracity of the text in the first testimony, in which, since the year of the Diocletian era is expressed only by letters or characters signifying the number, it could have happened with no difficulty at all that either a rho (ρ) was fashioned from an omicron (ο) by scribes, or a sigma (σ) was converted into a tau (τ) by copyists, which clearly does not seem to be in doubt.
These things therefore being established, let us see, finally, who this Sergius is to whom Philoponus dedicated his work on the *Hexaëmeron*. Truly, if we are not mistaken, he is the one whom the Jacobites of the East designate as the successor to the impious Severus, who invaded the Antiochene see. I know, indeed, that it is read in the *History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria* that a certain Theophanes succeeded Severus in the Antiochene patriarchate; but, as Le Quien well noted (vol. II, p. 1317, *Orient. Christ.*), the Eastern writers—to whom surely greater credit ought to be given when they write about their own affairs—are ignorant of that Theophanes or Theophilus. For Dionysius of Tell Mahre, patriarch of the Jacobites, in his *Chronicle*, and likewise Dionysius Bar Salibi in his *Catalogue of the Patriarchs of Antioch* of the Jacobite sect, and also Bar-Hebraeus, or Abulpharagius, in his *Chronicle*—these, I say, all of them, the whole family of Syrian historians, do not place Theophanes, but Sergius, as the immediate successor to Severus, whom they report to have been ordained by John, bishop of Anazarbus. It would be too long to cite the testimonies of each, which, if anyone wishes to consider more attentively, let him go to the most learned man in Syriac affairs, Jos. Simon Assemani, in *Bibl. Orient.*, vol. II, p. 322, whose judgment the above-mentioned Le Quien correctly concluded should not be departed from. That man, therefore, whom Philoponus praises, was a certain Sergius from the city of Tela, or Constantina in Osroene, formerly a presbyter of the monastery of Hola, that is, Arena, called by the surname Beth-Charta. Assemani deals with him, loc. cit., and notes opportunely that under him flourished the prince and founder of the Jacobites, Jacob Zangalus, John of Euphemia, and that other John, father of the Tritheites, namely "Utris-fundum," [and] Athanasius, grandson of the Empress Theodora by her daughter, B Conon the Tarsian, Eugenius of Seleucia in Isauria, John the Grammarian, surnamed Philoponus, Theodore, bishop of Edessa, and Julian the bishop, who infected the Nubians and Ethiopians with Monophysitism. I would gladly say that this is the same Sergius to whom B. Eulogius, archbishop of Alexandria, reports that Severus wrote, according to Photius, cod. 230; for I think it very likely that the man who succeeded Severus—who had previously been joined to him in some familiarity—is the same; and I reckon that he is clearly the same as the one who is called a Grammarian in the Acts of the first Council of Constantinople, Act IV, and to whom Severus is said to have written: "Likewise of the same Severus to Sergius the Grammarian, where he says: 'Since indeed one is the agent, and one is his energy, and one [is his] operating motion.'" Also [a work] of the same Severus to Sergius the Grammarian, where he says: "Since therefore one is the worker, one also is his operation, and operating or operative motion." Mention of this epistolary work or book to Sergius is indeed made also in the *Ecclesiastical History* of Dionysius the patriarch, in Assemani, vol. II, p. 81, and in the *Catalogue of the Coislin Library*, p. 55. I would believe, therefore, that Sergius, a Syrian man, was one of the first followers of Severus, and of the number of those who lived in Constantinople, so that they might learn and profess Greek erudition. Certainly, from the narrative of Abulpharagius cited above, it is gathered that the Syrians had in the royal city a certain academy, or school, in which they occupied themselves with Greek letters, so that they might commend themselves to the emperors and more easily defend and propagate their errors. Certainly Samuel Petrus from Mesopotamia, who had John "Utris-fundum" as a student, taught in that Academy, and upon his death John "Utris-fundum" himself immediately occupied his chair. Could one stray much from the truth to say that Antiochus, also a Syrian by nation, had once presided over this academy, who arrived at such a fame of eloquence that he returned home laden with gold? And that after Antiochus, the Severian bishop of Gabala took over, who also acquired huge wealth for himself in Constantinople through the art of speaking, and that Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Nestorius, Severus, and other Syrians were from the same School, who indeed flourished in Constantinople with the praises of their genius and language, as the *Ecclesiastical History* testifies; so that the succession of doctors in that Academy might be recognized from the tradition of doctrine? What if, then, we say that Sergius succeeded John "Utris-fundum" after the latter was driven into exile, because he calculated three natures, essences, and deities in the Trinity according to the number of persons? What if the Grammarian was called so for the reason that he taught human letters in the royal city? What, finally, if the Syrians were eager to decorate him with the title of Grammarian so that the relationship and emulation of studies which existed between him and the Grammarian Philoponus might be understood? I truly confess that there are many things which draw me, not unwillingly, to this opinion.
But who will say whence the connection of friendship and kinship between Sergius and Philoponus is derived? What society and communion of studies and opinions could there have been between an Alexandrian philosopher and an Antiochene patriarch? One must declare himself a guest [to knowledge] and clearly ignorant of *Ecclesiastical History* whoever does not know that Severus, an exile from Antioch, came to Alexandria, and that together with him a great confluence of heretics flowed there: whence so many evils were attempted in Egypt, so many tumults excited, religion violated, the faith of the Fathers repudiated, error accepted, and Monophysitism stabilized at length in the West just as in the East. Nor is there any doubt that the author of the very close union which thereafter followed between the Eastern and Western Jacobites was Severus, who, forced to flee first from Byzantium, and then from Alexandria, was compelled to move from one city to another, now...
appearing in public, and now traversing various monasteries, until he died in the year 550, or, as others prefer, 542, by whose death the world was freed from a pestilential monster. A I believe, therefore, that at that time those who were distinguished by the reputation of their letters and erudition were living—Joannes Philoponus at Alexandria, and Sergius the Grammarian at Constantinople—between whom we do not rashly conjecture that a certain mutual benevolence and friendship was established, arising from their affinity in studies and sentiments, and from their equal hatred of the Council of Chalcedon. Meanwhile, Sergius, having been ordained by the bishop of Anazarbus, and having become Patriarch of Antioch with the favor of the Monophysites, exhorted Joannes Philoponus, who had attacked Severus in his writings for not favoring him, in his own name and in that of Athanasius, the nephew of the Augusta Theodora, to write a book on the Hexaemeron according to the opinion of Moses; so that both of them might appear not to be alien to sound doctrine.
B That Theodora, the wife of the Emperor Justinian, defended the errors of all heretics, and especially those of the Severians, and their cause (she being clearly a shameful woman, whatever those may say who think Procopius was led away by a pruritus for lying and slandering), is evident from ecclesiastical writers: Procopius, *Anecdota*, chap. 10 et seqq.; Evagrius, lib. IV, chap. 10; Anastasius in *Saint Silverius*; Victor of Tunnuna, *Ad consulatum Basilii*, who everywhere lacerate her on account of avarice, debauchery, and heresy. All the wicked and all the criminal held her as their defender and patroness. Promoted from a brothel to the throne to the great detriment of the Church, and married to Justinian, she drove his mind so miserably to madness that he is portrayed by Procopius as guilty of every crime. Moreover, being most ingenious in the art of simulation, she strove to conceal all her own crimes, and whatever was ill-acted, and could create envy, she cast upon Justinian. In this one thing, however, she was always constant: namely, that she favored the heretics; for while it appears that the Emperor always wished the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon to be firm, she, however, was always hostile to the right faith. I shall bring forward one witness, Evagrius, who, concerning the pursuits that were either real, or conversely simulated, between Theodora and Justinian, says this: "Justinian, therefore, adhered most bravely to those who had gathered at Chalcedon and to the things set forth by them; but Theodora, his wife, to those who spoke of one nature, whether they were truly so disposed, or whether it was by some hidden economy—yet they did not give way to one another." Just as Justinian adhered most constantly to the bishops who had gathered as one at Chalcedon and to the decrees issued by them: so did Theodora his wife [adhere] to those who asserted one nature in Christ. Therefore, whether they truly felt this way, or whether they had agreed upon it by design, no one nevertheless gave way to the other. But let him who wishes for more approach Procopius, who reveals the mind and morals of the wicked woman. No wonder that he who has read these things will not wonder that Saint Sabas refused to pray to God for the offspring that Theodora vehemently desired. For the holy man refused, as Saint Cyril of Scythopolis reports in the *Life of Saint Sabas* (in Cotelier, *Monum. Gr.*, tom. III), that he would ever do such a thing: "Lest her sons suck upon the dogmas of Severus, and trouble the Church worse than under Anastasius," so that her children might not taste the dogmas of Severus and perturb the Church more than was done under Anastasius. Therefore, Theodora directed the deceits and machinations of the Severians against the orthodox. She clearly reached such a point of insanity and power that she created priests and bishops at her own whim, which Procopius clearly testifies, *Anecd.* cap. 17: "She ordained the magistrates and the priesthoods, taking care and guarding most diligently for this one thing only, that no one who was good or honest should pursue that dignity, as he would not be able to perform what was promised." She created magistrates and priests, C ever watchful and careful that no upright and honest man should obtain dignities, who would not also be ready to obey upon his pledged faith. Furthermore, the histories are full, which testify that she nurtured both Anthimus at Byzantium and Theodosius at Alexandria, who were both Monophysites, and that she saw to it that Severus, the invader of the Church of Antioch, should be restored, and they most openly confess that she held all the Syrian Monophysites most dear. Who then here will doubt to affirm that, upon the death of Severus, Sergius the Grammarian, at the very command of Theodora, was substituted by the Severians—who had so great an auxiliary and administrator of their errors—especially since Jacob Langelus, or Baradaeus as he is called, already possessed very much authority in the East, who was a disciple of Severus, and who established the sect of the Jacobites? For Severus, the son of Makalfael, bishop of Aschum in Egypt, narrates in the *Arabic History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria*, which Renaudot published rendered into Latin and abridged, that the Jacobites of the East, when they heard that Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch, had died, abstained for a little while from substituting another who might succeed him, for fear of the Emperor Justinian; but when they understood that the Alexandrians, associates in their error, had designated a successor to Theodosius, they themselves also immediately chose Theophanem as patriarch, whom, as the same Sergius of whom we are speaking, we have demonstrated above from the authority of the Syrian writers. But that the Monophysites gave that nickname to Sergius when he became patriarch, so that they might honor him with great praise and say he was, as it were, "shown by God," it might perhaps not be unreasonable to judge. See Assemani, tom. II, p. 70 and 323.
And one will discover that all these things also agree with the narration of Abulpharagius, who will not refuse to reread now the narration itself protected and corrected by some observations: for there it is openly said that "in these times, namely when Justinian punished Joannes Aschusnaghem, or 'Earth-bottom,' with exile, the Empress Theodora had a grandson by her daughter, named Athanasius, who was educated by the monk Amantius and the presbyter Sergius, who was the patriarch of the orthodox." Historians testify that the Augusta Theodora received no children from Justinian, and from that which was related from the *Life of Saint Sabas*, it is more clearly evident. Therefore, those children she had were certainly born of an unlawful union before her marriage was joined with Justinian. That she had an unnamed daughter, who was the mother of Anastasius, Procopius affirms, chap. 4 and 5, upon whose authority Carolus Du-Fresne relies (*Hist. Byzant.*, lib. 1, pag. 96). A suspicion arose in me at once that the name Anastasius had been changed to Athanasius by the Syrian writer: for although Procopius asserts most clearly that Anastasius had been forcibly betrothed to Joannina, the daughter of Belisarius, and Abulpharagius relates that he was a monk, I would believe that both could have happened: for when Theodora was dead, who, as the same Procopius has it, against right and wrong D *oudeni nomō* (by no law), and not without rumor, by force trampled upon modesty, and secretly joined Anastasius to Joannina, Antonina, the mother of Joannina, "dishonors the son-in-law, the grandson of Theodora. And having forced the girl, she separated her from the man she loved," and, spurning the betrothed grandson of Theodora, she snatched the daughter from his love by force; which having been done, it seems to me very probable that Anastasius retired into a monastery. This Anastasius, therefore, or Athanasius [who was] with the monk Amantius and the presbyter Sergius, who was the patriarch of the orthodox, was educated. Behold that Sergius the Grammarian emerges, about whom you are disputing, and who is said by a Monophysite writer to be the patriarch of the orthodox, because all the Jacobites have been accustomed to call themselves orthodox, but us they call Catholics. Now, however, it is more clearly evident for what cause he had been promoted to the patriarchate. He had bound to himself the Augusta Theodora, whose grandson he had educated. Here, likewise,
A there were disputes, just as Severus had also written against Philoponus, as is gathered from codex 8 of the Coislinian Library edited by Montfaucon, page 53; for there, among the works of Severus, sermons or books against John the Grammarian are listed. But let us see what Abulpharagius says happened next: that the Alexandrians condemned the book and the author. But the Tritheites supplicated the emperor that their cause might be debated in a public trial, and that this task was committed to the patriarch of the Chalcedonians. There is no doubt that the Patriarch of the Chalcedonians is here called John Scholasticus by the Monophysite writer with a certain silent mockery: for Abulpharagius preferred to call him the Chalcedonian, based on the office of judge which he filled in that dispute, rather than by the title of his dignity, which he enjoyed, as the Constantinopolitan; he adds that the *Constituta* were absent. The *Diacrinomenoi*, whom he calls his own—those who confess one nature in Christ—as well as their adversaries who defended the cause of the Tritheites, especially Conon and Eugenius; and in favor of the orthodox—namely, the Hesitant Monophysites—stood John of Asia (in whose place Photius, codex 29, has Stephanus) and Paul, who later succeeded the patriarch Sergius; then, at last, for four days, a debate was held before the patriarch of the Chalcedonians. All these things agree exactly with those reports which Photius relates; for he, having narrated the same matters in various places in codices 23, 24, 35, and 65, concludes thus concerning the book of Philoponus: "So many vain things he speaks against it, and is emboldened; and in four parts he performs his whole comedy against it. Nothing is persuasive, or holds to the mind." And such trifles B does this writer audaciously throw out against this synod, and in four parts he completes his whole comedy against it, with nothing worthy of belief or sound mind being brought forward. There remains, therefore, nothing else to note in the whole narrative of Abulpharagius except that which he indicates quite openly at the end: that Paul, from the number of the *Diacrinomenoi*, succeeded Sergius—of whom there is mention—in the patriarchate of Antioch: which accords well with those things which other Syrian writers narrate, as can be seen in Assemani, vol. II, pages 325 and 529, and in Le Quien, vol. II, page 1358, where he describes the series of Jacobite patriarchs. For Paul, surnamed Bet-Uchaine, an Alexandrian by birth, was ordained patriarch of Antioch by Jacob Baradaeus, or as others prefer, by Thomas, bishop of Edessa, after he was forced to depart from Egypt—because he was seeking the Alexandrian see—by Athanasius, or Anastasius, the grandson of Theodora; from which it is also deduced that a new division occurred among the Monophysites, and that Paul himself did not adhere to Athanasius, nor to Philoponus and the other Tritheites, but went over to a third opinion, which however did not please the Catholics; for which reason he is considered the author of a certain peculiar sect, which was called the Paulianists, as Timothy the priest of Constantinople narrates in his work *On the Reception of Heretics* in Cotelier, *Monum. Eccles. Græc.*, vol. III, page 411.
It is certain, however, that there were simultaneities, as also Severus wrote against Philoponus, C indeed Anastasius, or Athanasius, as Abulpharagius follows, having rejected the communion of the Chalcedonians, fell into that heresy when he was a simple brother, and possessed as associates in his error Conon of Tarsus and Eugenius from Seleucia in Isauria. It is clear that the grandson of Theodora, Anastasius or Athanasius, and Sergius his teacher were equally hostile to the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon, and that both favored the Tritheites, for whom Conon and Eugenius stood in the dispute held before John Scholasticus, as Photius confirms (codex 25). But John the Grammarian, adds Abulpharagius, when he had begun to shine with ecclesiastical erudition, finally embraced the same opinion. Here emerges Philoponus, who is the third associate and asserter of the error. Henceforth our small people was split into two factions. It is a well-known fact that the Monophysites were divided among themselves, and those who escaped the mark of Tritheism, like Paul and Stephen, were called *Diacrinomenoi* (Hesitants), regarding which matter, besides Photius (codex 23), one should consult Nicephorus, lib. xv, cap. 47. At that time, however, Athanasius the monk sent demonstrations composed by Utris-sundus to John the Grammarian, who wrote a treatise on this opinion and sent it to Athanasius. Athanasius—or if you prefer, Anastasius, the grandson of the Augusta Theodora, and disciple of Sergius—you see here, reader, openly favoring the error, and recommending the cause of Philoponus, and Philoponus himself treating the matter seriously and writing in favor of Tritheism, as it seemed to Photius indeed vapid and slender, but as Nicephorus, cap. 45, judged, sharp and ingenious; for he says, "he who put forth D many difficult and hard-to-refute writings against the synod," that is, he had published many difficult books against the fourth synod, which would not be so easy to refute. But whether that treatise, of which Abulpharagius speaks, was the book titled *Arbiter* (Διαιτητής), or another written against the Severians, utterly escapes me. I certainly know that Suidas has testified that Philoponus also wrote *Against Severus*; which indeed cannot seem surprising in any way, for although he at first willingly agreed with Severus in condemning the Synod of Chalcedon, he later departed much from his opinion. For while Severus affirmed one nature out of two in Christ after the union, Philoponus, while constantly asserting three natures in the Holy Trinity, and admitting one out of two in Christ, professed Tritheism as far as it pertains to the Trinity, and introduced a quaternity in the incarnation. And from this dissension of tongue and mind arose that dispute before John Scholasticus, of which Abulpharagius treats here, and the schism among the Severians themselves occurred, as some wished to play the fool with Philoponus, and others with Severus, but none of them at all approving of the decrees of the Fathers of Chalcedon, as was fitting. And Philoponus indeed wrote another work against the *Acephali*, who were of the sect of Severus, which exists in the Vienna Library under this title: *Ioannis Grammatici contra Acephalos capita xvii* (Ἰωάννου Γραμματικοῦ πρὸς τοὺς Ἀκεφάλους κεφάλαια ιζ'), the first of which begins, as Lambecius testifies, lib. iv, pag. 215: *El dicit Deum solum Christum, manichaizat, et qui dicit solum hominem Christum, paulianizat, et qui dicit Christum Deum quidem perfectum, hominem autem imperfectum, apollinarizat.* Nor indeed is this book *Against the Acephali* to be confused with the *Arbiter*; for it is clear that the *Capita* was a work distinct from the *Arbiter*, since Philoponus himself made mention of the *Capita* in the book *Arbiter*.
Abulpharagius, whom we find in agreement with Photius and the other historians, is supported by John the Grammarian himself, who, as we have noted above, praises Athanasius, or Anastasius the grandson of Theodora, in the Proem to his book on the Hexaemeron. Nor indeed could anyone else be "the well-known one of the family, no less in piety than in birth, Athanasius." By which proof it is firmly confirmed that Sergius, Athanasius, and Philoponus were linked together by ties of friendship and goodwill. But since Philoponus says, "the coworker of this study was Athanasius," one may rightly gather from that that Athanasius himself, while Philoponus was writing his Commentaries on the Hexaemeron, stood by him and prompted his mind so that, having taken up this genre of writing, he might gratify Sergius; for when he himself, instructed by the same Sergius,
had testified that he had undertaken the work, he immediately added: A "And Athanasius was a companion in this endeavor, familiar as a lion's cub to one who has reared it in virtue," which Corderius translates thus: "The companion of this study was the illustrious Athanasius, who ran toward virtue together with his pupil like a lion's cub." And so Athanasius had at that time turned aside to Alexandria to be with Philoponus; which is indeed the greatest testimony of the connection and clearly singular friendship between Philoponus himself, Athanasius, and Sergius. And perhaps it was done by the care of Sergius himself, that when he saw that he had been elevated to the patriarchate, he should commend his disciple Athanasius to the one whom he knew to be bound to him by a similarity in all studies. Furthermore, that Athanasius not once but often traveled to Egypt, and there by his authority stirred up disturbances, is evident from the fact that we have recently spoken regarding Paul, the successor of Sergius, whom all writers concerning Syrian affairs affirm to have been expelled from Egypt by the efforts of Athanasius. Therefore, if we are not mistaken, Philoponus desired that Sergius and Athanasius be commended at one and the same time, so that he might enter into the favor of both master and disciple at once. For we do not consider Corderius's version to be acceptable at all, which exhibits such a meaning that Athanasius seems to have been a disciple of Philoponus rather than of Sergius: but those words, "like a lion's cub to one who has reared it in virtue," we interpret thus: "who as a lion's cub runs nimbly toward virtue with you who have reared it." Which interpretation perhaps expresses the intention of the author more sincerely, and confirms what has been said thus far in a wonderful manner.
And now, if I am not mistaken, it is evident that Philoponus dedicated his *Cosmogonia* not to the Constantinopolitan Sergius, but to the Antiochene patriarch, who indeed was constituted successor to Severus by the Monophysites, for whom it was of great interest to have a companion and patron of their error in that see. Now this Sergius, as has been indicated above, was born at Tela, which is a most ancient city of Mesopotamia. That Tela, once called Antipolis, was restored by the Emperor Constantius in the year 250 and called Constantina from his name, the author of the Edessene Chronicle, in Assemani’s *Bibliotheca Orientalis*, vol. 1, pages 293 and 396, is witness; and from him it was excellently observed that Dionysius, the Jacobite patriarch, erred in writing in his Chronicle that Tela was called Constantinople by Emperor Constantine. Whether, however, Tela is the same city that is called Constantina in the *Notitia Imperii* of Nisibis, and Nicephorium by Stephanus and Suidas, it is not for us here to investigate. It suffices that there be room for our conjecture, that once there was a city in Mesopotamia which was called Constantina, and that it was the fatherland of the Antiochene patriarch Sergius, the successor of Severus. But what shall we say here regarding Photius, who in codex 75 calls this Sergius, to whom Philoponus wrote, a Constantinopolitan? Shall I say that he fell into the error by which Dionysius was deceived? I think that a man endowed with such sharp intellect should be judged more sparingly, and I do not doubt that it is to be attributed to the carelessness of the copyists. For what is easier than that they should have found written in the codices "to Sergius the Constant." and, led astray by the fame of the name, read it as "to the Constantinopolitan" instead of "to Constantina's"? Beyond the fact that it is also to be observed that the Sergius who is under discussion is not called a Constantinopolitan patriarch by Photius, but merely "Sergius the Constant.," which title the same Photius seems to have used to designate quite clearly another Sergius B distinct from the Constantinopolitan patriarch. Therefore, if any sensible person admits that so many conjectures—and not light ones at that—are not to be rejected, he will certainly concede that the Sergius of Philoponus must be distinguished from Sergius the Pisidian. For already Beth-Chartam, the grammarian, of Telan or Constantinian origin—that is, from the city of Constantina, which is also called Mauzalat by the Syrians—will call him the Antiochene patriarch, or Monophysite if he pleases; but that only the other, the Constantinopolitan and Monothelite, is to be so called, no one is entirely ignorant. Can anyone wish to doubt here who that Sergius is, whom Philoponus calls, "a great ornament of those who are among the priests of God, a great ornament of the Pontiff who performs sacred rites for God"? But we believe the matter to be established and demonstrated.
C Therefore, so that those things which have been written and expanded thus far from many arguments and conjectures may be brought into one, I will say that Philoponus, as it seems to me, was born around the end of the fifth century and died shortly after the debate held in the presence of John Scholasticus, so that he was unable to prolong his life to the end of the sixth century; that he knew Severus of Antioch and Theodosius, patriarch of Alexandria, and their immediate successors, who had converted the Eutychian poison into Monophysitism, so that he did not rightly oppose their errors, but strove to draw them to his own opinion through a varied genre of writings; that he won for himself the favor and patronage of Theodora Augusta, the benevolence and veneration with which he followed her nephew Anastasius, or Athanasius, and the nephew's teacher, Sergius the Grammarian; and consequently, that he had as contemporaries Severus of Antioch himself, Theodosius of Alexandria, Anthimus the Constantinopolitan patriarchs, Jacob Baradaeus known as Zanzalus, Conon and Eugenius, Stephen and Paul, and Themistius known as Calonymus, and many other Monophysites who were very famous at that time, all of whom, since they died within the limits of the sixth century, it will in no way be conceded—what Abulpharagius, forgetting himself, relates elsewhere—that the same Philoponus was alive up to the burning of the Alexandrian Library. D Nicephorus, indeed, in book XVII, cap. 48, circumscribed the age of Philoponus somewhat more correctly than other authors. For he says that George Pisida lived around the times of Philoponus, but was far younger than him, "being a contemporary, even if much younger in time." For although *hēnikiōtēs* signifies contemporaries, nonetheless, that the word is not to be taken as if age matched age entirely, Nicephorus shows by adding, "even if much younger in time." For the Pisidian was perhaps born when Philoponus died. And Nicephorus would indeed have designated the age of Philoponus even more clearly if, for the sake of religion and faith, he had retained all the words of Timothy the Constantinopolitan presbyter. For he, in the booklet *On the Reception of Heretics* in Cotelerius, *Monum. vet.*, vol. III, page 415, which booklet Nicephorus transcribed almost in its entirety, as is evident to readers, when he had recounted the opinion of Philoponus regarding the resurrection, adds: "Conon, and those with him, as we have said, formerly accepting the writings in which he taught these things, and honoring even Philoponus himself while he was alive and after his death in writing and unwritten tradition, finally rejected both him and his writings." Therefore, if Conon, who had stood for Philoponus in the debate in the presence of John Scholasticus, and had praised him before and after his death, finally fought against the same with his followers, and these things could not have happened until around the year 580, who does not see that Philoponus died around the same year in which that debate was held. But Nicephorus, when he had decided with himself to make Philoponus a contemporary of the Pisidian, and had recognized that Timothy did not favor his opinion, suppressed those words, from which it is evident that Philoponus was already dead when Conon and those with him, who were truly contemporaries of Philoponus, departed from him: yet he candidly admitted—
A—to being hesitant in establishing the true age of Philoponus. But besides other authors who have doubted the time in which Philoponus flourished, we must certainly not omit Dominicus Mansius, a man deserving well of ecclesiastical history, who, at the year 555, § 78 of the Annals of Baronius, acutely noted the following against Pagi, who had asserted that Philoponus lived almost to the very end of the sixth century: "I doubt whether what Pagi writes here regarding John Philoponus himself corresponds to the truth. For I think he is the same as John the Grammarian, against whom we learn from a manuscript in the Coislin Library, page 53, that Severus of Antioch wrote at least three books." Furthermore, if Severus, bishop of Antioch, wrote against him, he ought to have been considered as having already disseminated his dogmas shortly after the year 20 of the sixth century; but it is hardly credible that he, who was not even then a young man, being already a teacher of heresy, extended his life to the very end of that century, etc. But long before Mansius, Vossius, in *De philosophicis sectis*, chapters 17 and 18, led by a new argument into suspicion, had defined the matter as certain; for speaking of Simplicius, who is known to have flourished under the Emperor Justinian, he adds: "Simplicius often inveighs bitterly against Philoponus, which shows that he was either younger than or contemporary with Philoponus." So those who collect from Nicephorus, book XVIII, 47, that he lived under Phocas, that is, around the year 600, are mistaken. B But nothing in this matter can be brought forward more clearly or more firmly than what Philoponus himself, as we demonstrated above against Fabricius, left testified concerning himself, namely, that at the time when he was writing against Proclus, it was the 245th year of Diocletian, that is, 529 of Christ. And indeed the authority of Philoponus, than which there is none more weighty, seems to be confirmed by Elmacinus, who, as Renaudot testifies in *Hist. Alexandr.*, page 135, says that John the Grammarian, surnamed Philoponus, lived under Timothy the Younger, the third patriarch of Alexandria of this name, who, when he had lost the pontificate and his life in the year 536, had as his successor that Theodosius who was driven out by the Gaianite faction (for which Philoponus seems to have stood), and was summoned to Constantinople by the order of Theodora, and opposed Philoponus and the Tritheites: which Leontius truly hints at in *De sectis*, Act 5, saying: "While Theodosius was still acting in Byzantium, the dogma of the Tritheites was reborn, of which sect Philoponus was the leader."
Since, therefore, it is manifest from so many accumulated arguments that Philoponus lived around these times, it seemed strange to us that the illustrious Joseph Simon Assemani, who knew all these things well, neither avoided the error into which very many writers had fallen, nor detected Abulpharagius contradicting himself, especially when on page 411 of his second volume, speaking of Aba, or Mar Aba, Primate of the East, who died in the year of the Greeks 832, 552 of Christ, he noted that Abulpharagius in his Chronicle has this about him: "Furthermore, they say that the Nestorians and Abas also associated with John the Grammarian the Tritheite, and drew doctrine from him." How, therefore, could it happen that the same Philoponus both lived in the decline of the sixth century and was a contemporary of Elias, patriarch of the Jacobites, and of Saint John of Damascus, who flourished in the beginning of the eighth century, as the same Assemani seems to assert elsewhere, vol. II, page 94? But who will boast for certain that he has ferreted out the truth in such inconsistency and variety of affairs and writers, who, as Renaudot well noted in *Hist. Alex.*, p. 142, not once do they pour out things transacted over many years in a single breath, as if they had happened in one and the same interval of time? But there is one thing yet, before I dismiss Assemani, I think I must observe, lest I seem to have wished to pass over in silence those things which do not favor my opinion. For he determined that the Sergius of whom Abulpharagius speaks in the aforementioned story is the one who made the sect, C as Timothy the presbyter has it in *De recept.*: "The sixteenth was that sect of Sergius, which departed from the faction of Peter, and formed its own family." D I confess that I do not know for what reason the most learned man wished to confuse the Sergius whom Abulpharagius calls a patriarch of the orthodox with Sergius of Peter; since the same Abulpharagius distinguishes these two Sergiuses, and makes the one patriarch of Antioch, but the other bishop of Edessa. But whence this Sergius of Peter is so called, is sufficiently evident from the cited testimony of Timothy the presbyter, namely because it departed from the sect of Peter Callinicensis, the Jacobite patriarch, and, as Abulpharagius adds, rose up against his writings, and is called an Armenian. For that this Sergius of Peter was the author of a new heresy and ridiculous superstitions in all Armenia is evident from Cotelerius, among whom more things truly ridiculous are read concerning his dog Artziburios, for whose death a solemn fast was instituted among the Armenians, whose defense against the Greeks who abhor this fast the same Assemani seems in vain to have undertaken—*Kalend. eccl. universæ*, vol. VI, page... [Original-script column: see facsimile]. It was likely done by analogy, that since many John the Grammarians (about whom see Fabricius, *Bibl. Gr.*, lib. V, part V, page 360) and many Sergiuses (as Assemani demonstrates loc. cit.) existed, those most deserving in literary matters could not easily distinguish what belonged to each. Although, as far as the history of the Alexandrian Library is concerned, as is my opinion, Abulpharagius of his own ingenuity invented Philoponus, hindering as much as he could the fact that he should perish; for since absolutely no man of distinction for learning and doctrine helped him, he named Philoponus to be praised for that reason. But I am pleased that Assemani himself agrees with me here, who recently in book IV of his *Bibl. Juris Orient.*, page 79, openly testified that the narrative of Abulpharagius concerning Philoponus should be relegated among Arabic fables.
We have judged that all these things should be discussed more broadly and fully, both because we think they contain some utility; and because we believe it is openly proven therefrom that the Sergius to whom Philoponus dedicated his Cosmogony is not the Sergius whom Pisida celebrates in his iambics on the Hexaemeron. But what then, you will say? Did George write against John Philoponus? Certainly, if you concede the things discussed so far, I will confess that Pisida attacks Philoponus in his iambics, and when the occasion is given, I will confirm it more clearly. But here also it can be established quite firmly, as it seems to me, that George Pisida attacks Philoponus in his Hexaemeron; for although Philoponus refuted Proclus and wrote Commentaries on the Hexaemeron not alien to Christian dogmas, it is evident that in working on each work he preferred to contend with philosophical subtleties and arguments sought from reason rather than the authorities of holy Scripture. Which clearly, as it was not at all pleasing to Pisida, and yet seeing that the odious name of Philoponus still thrived and that his writings were read and held in honor, he undertook this truly arduous work, by which he concluded the creation of the world with not inelegant verses, and demonstrated that Proclus should be crushed not by the force of arguments, but by the sole weight of holy Scripture. For Pisida assails Proclus at the beginning, not Philoponus, as it has seemed to some; but he silently implies Philoponus himself, that he did not respond to Proclus as becomes a Christian. But how great a fame Philoponus obtained even then is evident from the fact that he nowhere names him, although he everywhere carps at and mocks his doctrine and writings. For the vain science of the Sophists, in which Philoponus shone,
A he often condemns, and while scorning the disputations of the gentiles on the investigation of the nature of things, he holds these chief rules of philosophizing: to follow the oracles of the sacred Scriptures always and step-by-step; not to curiously inquire into things that exceed human intelligence; and to bend things that lie open to the eyes toward a mystical sense with the pious will of the soul. Moreover, he attacks Philoponus more openly where he firmly asserts the resurrection of the dead according to the opinion of the holy Fathers, and constantly maintains that there are two natures in the Word of God, not confused nor mixed, according to the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon; for there is no doubt that Philoponus especially sinned against these dogmata. But although these things may seem clear enough, if anyone prefers that Pisides not press Philoponus here—who, as has been demonstrated above, had long since departed from the living—but rather some other person unknown to us from the family of the Monophysites and Severians, who might value more highly the dogmas and writings of Severus, Philoponus, and the Acephali, I will easily allow it; for certainly there were not lacking, even at that time, men of great name who defended the fame and doctrine of Eutyches and Severus against the Catholics; which, indeed, appears most clearly from the poems of Pisides himself. Furthermore, I would not rashly condemn someone who might suppose that the person against whom the Hexaemeron is written, or at whom Pisides points his finger when he sets forth the right doctrine concerning the Incarnation, was Paul, surnamed the Monoculus, bishop of Armenia, about whom more will have to be said in the poem Contra Severum. But that I may at last declare here what seems more certain to me in this matter: Pisides wrote the Hexaemeron with the intention of embracing, all at once, all the dogmata of the Christians and refuting all the errors of the heretics that were flourishing at that time, so that it is not sufficiently safe to decide against whom specifically he wrote. B
But now enough and more than enough has been argued concerning Philoponus, his age, and his writings, concerning Sergius the Patriarch of Antioch, and concerning all those things which can illustrate the Hexaemeron of Pisides. One thing still remains for us to see, namely, what guide Pisides proposed to himself to imitate in this work; on which matter one could easily fall into doubt, since one person appoints one and another another for him. We have indeed seen in the Preface, from certain codices of the Royal Library of Paris, and from another Vatican codex no. 1281, that it might appear that these verses of Pisides were formerly attributed to Saint Cyril of Alexandria: but that was done for this reason, because perhaps it seemed to some unskilled persons that Pisides had written according to the opinion of Cyril. From the 309th codex of the Royal Library of Turin, however, it is clear that it was once believed that Pisides had so faithfully followed Saint Basil that he had joined these iambics as if in the place of Commentaries to illustrate his Hexaemeron. But you will find nothing in Cyril that you would say George Pisides pulled for his own use, unless perhaps you wish him to have written according to the mind of Cyril, who in his Glaphyra on Genesis undertook to prove that the mystery of Christ was signified figuratively through all the writings of Moses: for he testified that he looked to one thing in the Proem, *Nostra oratione ad Christi mysterium tendente, et ipsum habente pro fine; siquidem verum est, quod finis legum, et prophetarum Christus est*—with our speech extending to the mystery of Christ, and having it for an end; if indeed it is true that Christ is the end of the law and the prophets. That Pisides also intended this is plain from those mystical senses which he elicits here and there from physical things, and it is more openly proven by the many things which he subjoins in the place of a conclusion concerning the dispensation and miracles of Christ. But who for this reason would say that Pisides followed Cyril rather than other Fathers who held the same opinion? Indeed, with Anastasius as witness in Anagog. contempl. lib. I and VII, Philo, Papias, Saint Irenaeus, Saint Justin, C the Martyr, Ammonius the monk, Pantaenus of Alexandria, and Saint Clement the Stromatist, and their followers—from whose number are the two Cappadocian Gregories—did they not all understand the Hexaemeron of Christ and the Church? He would certainly judge more correctly who would decide that Pisides followed in the footsteps of Saint Basil; for he constrained many things in his iambics which are found explained more fully in the Homilies of the same Basil, which will have to be weighed more diligently in the annotations; so that the statement of Photius (cod. 43) regarding Philoponus, *καὶ συμφωνῶν ἐν τοῖς πλείστοις Βασιλείῳ τῷ μεγάλῳ*, and agreeing for the most part with Basil the Great, can quite nicely suit Pisides. However, those who immediately fix their eyes on those verses with which he begins his poem, and often interpreting them, finally concludes, will not doubt to assert that Pisides did not have either of the two praised Fathers before his eyes, but that it pleased him to proceed by another path:
How the Creator and wise all-working power of the wise man's works has been magnified.
O how magnified is thy creative and wise omnipotence in thy wise works! For who here would not remember David saying in the Psalm [103]: *Ὡς ἐμεγαλύνθη τὰ ἔργα σου, Κύριε· σφόδρα ἐβαρύνθησαν οἱ διαλογισμοί σου*. How magnified are thy works, O Lord; thy thoughts have been made very profound. And in the cited Psalm [103]: *Ὡς ἐμεγαλύνθη τὰ ἔργα σου, Κύριε, πάντα ἐν σοφίᾳ ἐποίησας· ἐπληρώθη ἡ γῆ τῆς κτίσεώς σου*. How magnified are thy works, O Lord; thou hast made all things in wisdom: the earth is filled with thy possession, or creation. Therefore, if anyone says that Pisides followed David rather than anyone else, he will seem to affirm that correctly indeed; for from these Psalms he took his refrain; and indeed, the Psalm which treats entirely of the same argument, whence it is rightly inscribed *Ψαλμὸς ὑπὲρ τοῦ κόσμου συστάσεως*, On the Constitution of the World, and whoever compares both will easily understand that the whole Hexaemeron of Pisides is a kind of near-paraphrase of this psalm. But if it be permitted to say what I think, Pisides imitated only Solomon, who concludes with invincible arguments from the fact that all things which are under heaven are known to be fleeting, vain, and subject to perpetual mutation; whereas, on the contrary, nothing is stable and firm except God, and that all human science must be placed in this: that he may recognize the one God, who is always the same, immutable, eternal, and omnipotent, manifest from his works, and the Son whom he sent, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior of all. Now, all that correctly agrees with those things which are contained in the books commonly called Wisdom books. It would be entirely infinite to wish to confirm what we have asserted with reasons and examples; yet the seventh chapter of the book of Wisdom suffices to prove it. Moreover, since it is known to all that those things which are read written in the books of Solomon agree with the philosophy of Socrates, and Pisides was nurtured and educated in the Eclectic-Platonic school, it is truly no wonder if he so explained the Mosaic narrative of the world from Plato’s doctrine, that all this treatment of the *Opifex* of God could seem to some to be nothing other than a kind of exposition of the dialogues which are inscribed *Timaeus* and *Timaeus Locrus*, adapted to the Christian sense. But let those who have the leisure compare the writings of Pisides and Plato: for we, lest the speech wander too far, pulling in our sails at last, will be content to have indicated this one thing; that Pisides conducted himself in explaining the works of God in such a way that, with Solomon not unwilling, he wished in some manner to reconcile Moses—from whom he does not depart a hair's breadth—with Plato: the judgment of which matter, evidently, be it with the reader. D
THE SAME: HEXAEMERON OR COSMOPOEIA
O you whose tongue, mind, and heart are filled with the power of any divine work and discourse, and nurtured, pour the streams of your heaven-running eloquence into my arid heart: A when...
NOTES
* That the title should more rightly be written "Cosmopoeia" than "Hexaemeron" as a poem is clear from the order the author has followed: for he does not seem to have wished to explain the works of the six days one by one, but to embrace them all at once; yet so that he never departs from the narration of Moses. Therefore, as I think, Pisides undertook to explain those words of Genesis above all, *In the beginning God created heaven and earth*, in which all things that were made by God are contained. Nor yet should you conclude from this that the poet has gone over to the opinion of those who think that all things were not created by God in the interval of six days, but all at once in one moment of time, relying on the authority, as it seems, of Ecclesiasticus, in which book it is read, *He who lives for eternity, created all things together*. For the word "together" in the Greek text is expressed as *koine*. *Extisen panta koine*, as if to say, He created all things whatsoever there are, gathered together at once, with nothing created left out. But although Pisides neither enumerates the six days, nor distinguishes the spaces of individuals, nevertheless he shows quite openly by the manner in which he proceeds in narrating the works of God that the fabric of the world was completed through the intervals of days.
verse 1. About to lead all things to mystical senses, Pisides at the very beginning of his discourse casts the seeds of mystical doctrine, which consists mainly in this: that it draws the human mind away from earthly things and transfers it to divine ones. And he seems here immediately to define that this is truly the science and philosophy of Christians, which, obtained through mystical contemplations, as they are called, leads man to the knowledge of God; of which science indeed three degrees are established for those who study to progress in it: namely, *katharsis*, the purgation of the heart; *photismos*, the illumination of the mind; and *teleiosis*, perfection and consummation. But let it suffice to have touched upon these, which are the main chapters and foundations of mystical doctrine, to which Pisides seems to have looked, so that what he intended may be understood. For he confesses that he was freed by Sergius from the darkness of the mind by which he was oppressed, and was led to treat of sacred things, as it befits a Christian. Moreover, it is to be observed that many things occur here which agree with the writings of Dionysius, commonly called the Areopagite. For whatever is read in Pisides about God, about divine perfections, about the celestial hierarchy, about the angels, is recognized as being treated in the manner of Pseudo-Dionysius. Whence you may gather: 1) that the author B of the Areopagitic writings was clearly older than the sixth century, whoever you may think he was, since Pisides had him as his master, and wrote according to his mind on mystical doctrine; II) that the Pseudo-Dionysian books did not have Pisides as the offspring of a certain Severianus, as has been doubted by some, but truly orthodox; although the Monophysites have often contended to draw Dionysius himself into their own parts, and to fortify themselves with his authority; III) that Pisides, from the very fact that he insists on the footsteps of Pseudo-Dionysius, shows himself to be a Platonist; for what is read in the Areopagitic writings about that sublime and super-celestial theology, exposed in a certain inflated and turgid style of speaking, differs little from the school and discipline of the Eclectics, and that there exists a great affinity between their author and Proclus, if the force of the notions and dictionaries be considered, even though their mind was entirely different, has already been observed from the times of Suidas in the article *Dionysius* down to our own age. But let these things be said in passing about Pseudo-Dionysius: for we know almost six hundred most learned men have disputed about his age and writings. But whoever wishes to know better those things which Pisides explains here and elsewhere through mystical senses, let him approach the writings of the same Pseudo-Dionysius, especially the *Treatise on Mystical Theology* to Timothy, and the *Isagoge* of P. Corderius prefixed to the treatise, in which all these things are explained at length.
...whom he testifies was not only able to think and speak about divine and celestial things as he wished, but also led others by his doctrine and piety to the knowledge of sacred things, and confirmed C by his own example that he had informed them.
...speeches, "mystical." Proclus Lycius, regarding whom more below... *ouranodromon* (heaven-running) he seems to have said: for there exists in the Imperial Library of Vienna a booklet which is inscribed *Uranodromos*, or *Scholion of Proclus the Heaven-runner*. See Lambecius, lib. VII, p. 87.
...that you can compare with the Areopagitic writings. *Anikmon kardian* (arid heart) Pisides had, that is to say, not irrigated by the fountains of divine eloquence, which Sergius diverted in his care so that he might raise him to the contemplation of God. Therefore, describing the blindness of his own mind...
A For with the drought of the darkness that had already seized me, / My mouth was necessarily struck dumb, / The trumpet of the Word being blocked. / For nothing so much breeds winter and a tempest of thoughts, / And shadows the sun of the Word, / And creates the night of gnosis-blindness, / And clouds the stars of the mind, / As the cloud of despondency; / It turns back all the mist of cares / And the fog of the understanding, / And reverses the aperture of the diopter, / Through which the mind views the small movements of the Word / By means of gnosis-bearing organs. / But since, through your light-bearing lamp, / The night has passed, and your Spirit has blown / Upon the cloud of the mind, / The beam toward peace has shone for us— / For you always feed us with contemplations, / And you guide the weak ones with words; / And you probe the things of the deep beyond nature, / And the knowledge of the mind, which had grown lax, / You cleanse with your gnosis-bearing purification.
NOTE
B ...exigua molimina... [Migne's Latin commentary on the preceding verses begins here]. C ...rationis motus contemplatur. D Cod. 1126 melius legit:
⟨Then followed by the text of Codex 1126:⟩ Has passed the night; and your spirit has blown Upon the cloud of care, having arrived. ... [alt-version omitted] ...You, however, speak the things that befit sound doctrine, and teach that they be sound in faith. ...to govern, and to instruct spiritually: hence it is that the soul or spirit...
A And with your wise and eloquent remedy, you soothe the nerves and the tensions of the Scriptures, tracking down the hidden things of the doctrines in the Scriptures; and with your gentle and serene word, you arouse the murmuring arguments. I have come bringing to you fruits of the desert heart, cultivated by your dew. For it was not likely that a soul sullied by brambles should cultivate a most fertile ear of corn, unless you had first arrived and removed the thorny shoots, or cut them away, or cleared them with the sharpest blade of your prayer. But O cultivator of rocks and brambles! For you yourself often sow upon the rocks, and force the stones to bear children, and deem it worthy that fruits should grow, and brambles, and not a single bird of your divine seed is fed by invisible flutterings. Water us with the stream of your tears; perhaps a child might be born of the barren one again, and a sensible fruit from a fruit-less heart. Since, however, you shun praises and blame, I have stretched my spirit toward the goal, trusting in your mystical darts. For the fountain of the Word is one, but the veins of the invisible eyes are many, through which David waters the whole mind, gushing forth the streams of this Scripture. How magnified is the creative and wise omnipotence of your wise works!
[NOTA.] B ...animating them as though they were lifeless. ...transfer to the office of the evangelical cultivator, cutting away and amputating with the blade of prayer the thorns and thickets of sins. See St. Cyril on John, p. 387, and St. John Chrysostom, homily 1 on Genesis, whom the Pisidian [George] imitated. ...Alia autem semina ceciderunt in petrosa, et continuo exorta sunt [Other seeds fell upon rocky ground, and immediately they sprang up]. ...to raise up children of Abraham from these stones. ...Et IV Esdr. x. 46. Quando sterilis peperit Filium [And IV Esdras 10:46. When the barren one brought forth a son]. ...assumes David as a guide for his work, whose famous exclamation, "How magnified are your works, O Lord," he not only admires, but lays as it were the foundation of his entire poem. For, concurring with the opinion which is common to all the Fathers, he suggests that it is not our task to dispute with vain questions and futile arguments about things which we can in no way attain, and to wish to investigate those things which surpass human capacity, but rather, overwhelmed with wonder, to admire the omnipotence and majesty of God in the things which He has miraculously created. C All Christian writers, both ancient and modern, have discussed this most eloquently: but perhaps it has succeeded for no one better than Lactantius, *Divinarum Institutionum* lib. III, cap. 19 and 20, which you may consult. Furthermore, we have demonstrated elsewhere how little curious the Fathers were in investigating the causes of natural things, because they well knew that after many arguments nothing certain had been said by those who were considered wise, in which matter they clearly followed Socrates and Plato. For that reason, those two men of great name in philosophy were considered more sensible by the primitive Christians, because, when they understood that the causes of things could not be discovered, they easily extricated themselves from such questions, and having rejected almost all physics, betook themselves to discussing only virtue and duties. Therefore, the Fathers rightly despised that vain science; yet in such a way that they most studiously gathered the single fruit of true wisdom that could be plucked from it: for as Saint Basil says, homil. 1 *in Hexaem.*, we are ignorant of the nature of those things which have been made; so that certainly whatever falls in every respect under our senses, carries with it so much of wonder, that even the most acute mind is found unequal to explaining, according to the dignity of the matter, even the least of those things which are in the world, or to rendering the due praise to the Creator. D ...Justin Martyr in *Cohortatio ad Graecos*, edit. Paris, p. 23, believed that one must observe that to Plato one thing is a poet, another is a creator.
A
O abyss of the riches of sciences, which criest out to those who wish to draw forth reasonings, As many as they are able to take, not as many as thou containest!
60 But O Sophist Proclus of earthly reasonings, Thou who thunderest much from crooked-running clouds, Thou surge of the pride of thoughts,
Ast, O Proclus, learned in earthly discourses, thou who thunderest aloud from the twisting clouds, and who, like a whirlwind, miserably [bringest forth] crafted and swollen...
NOTES
A ... that one must turn one’s mind to the fact that not even Plato refers to Him as a poet, but as a demiurge, although there is much difference in these things according to Plato’s own opinion. For the poet, needing nothing else, produces what is produced from his own power and authority; but the Demiurge constructs it having received the power of creation from matter. And it seems to me necessary also to note this, that it is not the Creator himself who is called by Plato the Opificer of the gods; since in the judgment of Plato himself there is a great deal of difference between the two. For the Creator, needing no other thing, effects what is made by his own virtue and power; but the Opificer constructs his own work having received the faculty of building from matter. Hence Pisida rightly calls the act of creation in God *demiourgia*. It is, moreover, found throughout the ecclesiastical writers that God is called *demiourgos*, just as *poietes*, *ktistes*, *technites*, Creator, Sower, Artificer, although they felt that a difference existed in these various denominations, and they used the word *demiourgos* in a sense other than the Platonic one. Almost the entire dialogue of Zacharias of Mitylene is engaged in explaining how Christians call God the *demiourgos*, and about the middle defines it thus: "If the *demiourgos* is, according to us, he who brought forth the very substance from nowhere and in no wise existent, and who co-generated the fitting matter for the form; for we say that God is the poet of substances, not only of shapes. But according to your account, he is the *demiourgos* who reshapes unshaped and formless matter into form and shape; and rids it of its former shapelessness and confusion, and the inherent C formlessness." Since we call him Opificer who drew forth substance itself from nothing existing anywhere and built compatible matter together with its form. For we say God is the effector of substances, not only of shapes. But to you the Opificer is he who, without figure and form, remolds matter into form and figure, and frees it from its original deformity, turbulence, and defilement. See also Saint Gregory of Nyssa, orat. *Contra Eunom.* part 12, "All-working, the operation effective of all things." Saint Cyril of Alexandria in *Johannem*, p. 495, has *pantourgikon*, which means the same thing. "Our Lord Jesus Christ has from the divine nature the power of effecting all things, as God, even if he appeared as man."
57. Rom. xi, 33. "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?" And ibid. xii, 3. "Not to think more highly than one ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith." Concerning temperance in searching out divine things, all the Holy Fathers after Paul have delivered excellent teachings. Saint Cyril of Alexandria in *Prosphon.* to the Emperor Theodosius: "It is not fitting to dissolve [divine mysteries] with excessive exactness, nor to bring down to extreme inquiries those things which are above the mind. For those things which surpass the intelligence, it is unworthy to undermine with immoderate diligence and to subject to excessive inquisitions."
60. For what reason the name of Sophist, which had long been a title of honor, fell into the envy and offense of men, the immense abundance of erudition of P. Cresollius in *Theat. vet. Rhet.* lib. 1, cap. 40, etc., has demonstrated. Against the Sophistic art (which is defined as the art of quibbling, whence Sophists have been called shifty, tricksters, and deceivers) all the Holy Fathers have very often declaimed; since the Sophists, whose father was truly the devil, abusing language and talent, cared for one thing only: that by subtle inventions and eristic questions they might destroy truth and deceive the minds of men. Hence Pisida rightly attacks Proclus, whose crafty and insane talent in weaving fallacies, establishing superstitions, and either contemning the Sacred Scriptures or distorting them to the sense of an eclectic Platonic philosophy is more notorious than ought to be said. He calls him *Sophisten ton kato logon*, a sophist of earthly discourses, because he has rashly conflated the ravings, superstitions, rites, and names of all nations, the religion of Christians and Jews alone excepted, into one, and although he had pilfered many things from the Christian doctrine, he nowhere wished to name them. Concerning Proclus see Fabricius, *Bibl. Graec.* vol. VIII, p. 456, and Brucker, *Hist. crit. philos.* tom. II, p. 318, etc. Of the rest, Pisida openly attacks Proclus, not Philoponus: for we have demonstrated that Proclus had fought against the Christians with eighteen arguments for the eternity of the world, and that he had been refuted by Philoponus in his *Prolegomena*. Nor can there be any doubt for anyone that Pisida, who was about to act concerning the creation of the world, looked to those same eighteen D *epicheiremata* of Proclus: wherefore that annotation which is read in the *Bibliotheca Patrum* appended to the margin is to be rejected, in which it is argued against Proclus or John Philoponus, the impious Tritheite, in the name of Proclus. Concerning the Sophists and the sophistic style of speaking, some things had to be said, because Pisida often alludes to the Sophistic art. He who wishes more, let him approach Eunapius and Philostratus in their *Lives*, and Petrus Faber in *Comment. ad leg. 1 De justit. et jure*.
61. Proclus in speaking of the "swell" (*tumorem*) is rightly noted by Pisida, who was not ashamed to make himself both inspired and a *demiourgos*. So great was the arrogance and audacity of the Sophists in speaking, that they were said to speak in the manner of prophets, to be inspired (*enthousiazein*) by the divine numen, and to "breathe" (*pnein*) something more grandiose. Pisida expresses the same thing otherwise, but elegantly, saying that Proclus "thunders" (*brontan*) from "twisting clouds." "What reason dost thou bring me, my philosopher," said Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, orat. 42, "that thou art not even brightened by the small sparks of truth?" What justification wilt thou offer for lightnings and thunders, I say, who thunderest from the earth, and dost not even shine with the most tenuous sparks of truth? The arguments, contrivances, and complexities of the Sophists were called *loxodroma*, that is, tortuous, oblique, and perplexing words, as if they were the responses of Apollo, which are called *loxai*, and Apollo himself is called *Loxias*.
... impoverished, who combined poverty with pride, Alexis in Athenaeus, lib. vi, and Gorgias. Aristoteles testifies in lib. II, 2 of *Art. Rhet.*, ... called a certain flatterer. *Komphe* is an affected elegance of speech, which was the property of the Sophistic style, whence the Sophists themselves were called *kompsos*, trim and clever. Rightly does Saint Gregory ...
A
[Lines 65–70] You, who dare much against the eternal creation, And yet pay penalties to an insatiable judgment, Hear the great power of a few syllables. For they say that even before you marveled at these things, You had already abandoned the words themselves by your ears alone; For to express the depth of the thoughts— Speaking, unspeaking, wavering, you were overturned, Wishing to stretch out the heap toward empty promises. For you were not unaware, being a clever writer, That if you dared to speak even of a gnat, It would itself, having stung you, put you to flight by sounding its trumpet. And do not boast among us as one who does not boast; But Faith is bold both to speak and to write B.
[Notes] Nyssenus Orat. 12 in Eunom. part. 2. He attributes the *kompsais* (elegances) of the arguments to the heretics, and to the vainest Sophists who bedaubed the poison of impiety with honeyed speech: *For they daub over the corruption-making dogma of their sophistries with honey, as it were, and pull up from below the heresies springing up like weeds in the Church by means of saying: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." If a Manichaean approaches, saying that matter pre-exists, or a Marcionite, or a Valentinian, or sons of the Greeks, say to them: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth." But if he does not believe the Scripture, turn away from him then as from a madman and one who has lost his mind, etc.* That Moses uproots all the heresies that were to sprout in the Church like tares by what he says: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth." C Hence, if a Manichaean comes to you, saying matter pre-exists; if a Marcion, if a Valentinus, if the Gentiles, say to them: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth." But what if someone does not believe Scripture? Henceforth avoid him as one who is rabid and mentally deranged, etc. See what follows, and Saint Basil in *Hexaem.* hom. 1.
He asserts that he [Proclus] had often promised to do it, but that his promises were empty, because he was uncertain and wavering, not daring to disclose his own mind, and thinking that the matter would turn out better for him if he remained silent. Add that below, v. 78, he says that Proclus had given occasion for writing about things created by God. Whence it is proved that Pisida is acting against Proclus himself, and not against Philoponus.
67. He mocks the madness of Proclus, who despised the wisdom of the Christians. It was the custom of all the Sophists to despise whatever was said by Christians like old wives' tales; whence they most impudently called Saint Cyprian "Coprianus," as if to call him a man of dung, from *kopros*. See Lactantius, *Divin. instit.* lib. v, page 562 edit. Lenglet.
70. "Ogkon," pride and ambition, the *alazoneia* (arrogance) which you will find frequently mentioned, Pisida attacks. *Alazonophlarous*, arrogant and puffed-up triflers, in one word Suidas called such braggarts. *Hyposcheseis*, a Sophistic term. Isocrates in the *Panegyric* said of certain rhetoricians whom he criticizes, that they promise great things, *megalas hyposcheseis*, and profess to tell things which had not yet been conceived by others. D
71. *Deinos logographos*, a crafty writer. Thus they are taken in a bad sense as Sophists. Rightly does Philostratus in the *Antigone* say they are called *deinos rhetoras*, applying to them a less honest name. The same Sophists were called *logographoi* (speech-writers), and *logodaidaloi*, painters of oration, speaking artificially.
72. See the proverb, "In the flea's bite to call on God." Erasmus, *Adag. Chil.*, III, 4. Very well known is the fable of Aesop, in which he makes a gnat fighting with a lion, and winning, to demonstrate that those who overthrow great ones are often overcome by the small.
74. Saint Gregory Nazianzen, orat. 27, declaring how he himself was driven to speak, says: *But I am not some boastful man, and lascivious in words, or so prepared that I would capture the goodwill of men by fawning: and more opportunely to our point, Saint John Chrysostom in psal. cxlii: "For he is arrogant, who boasts about small things, and despises his fellow-servants."*
76. In defense, he boasts that he is eloquent and full of good spirit, Saint Gregory Nazianzen.
A O sophist of foreign-seeded words, hear me, Proclus, and do not boast, since you have given the occasion for the goal, that they are silent: Proclus, and peasants speak. O the unsearchable nature, which you have hidden with mist and shrouded in clouds, so that we might learn how it is ever hidden and yet is made manifest from its own works. O the ever-moving roof of heaven, with the sphere-shaped enclosure of the wise!
B For we are bold and magnanimous in this alone; but now we speak with even more boldness concerning the truth, lest by shrinking back, as it is written, we be condemned for not being well-pleasing.
C Let us not, I say, be over-curious with human reasoning about the works of God, but, guided by the works, let us admire the Artificer; for his invisible things, says Saint Paul (Rom. I, 20), are clearly seen, being understood by the works from the creation of the world. Who has set the heaven as an arch, and stretched it out like a tabernacle to dwell in. And he has inclined the heaven down to the earth; and the lime has been poured out as on the earth; and I have glued it together like a square stone.
D Because the divine light is an inaccessible darkness, in which God is said to dwell; and to him who is invisible by reason of his transcendent brightness... in this is everyone who is deemed worthy to know and see God, by the very fact of not seeing and not knowing, truly becoming one who is above sight and knowledge, knowing this very thing, that he is after all things, both objects of sense and objects of intellect.
NOTES.
...neque cognoscit, in illo vere, qui visionem et cognitionem superat, exsistit hoc ipsum sciens, eum in omnibus tam sensilibus, quam intellectilibus exsistere. Dionys. Areopag. epist. 5. Dorotheo.
...neque cognoscit, in him in truth—who surpasses vision and knowledge—he exists, knowing this very thing, that he exists in all things, both sensible and intelligible. Dionys. Areopag., *Epist. 5 to Dorotheus.*
...neque cognoscit, in illo vere, qui visionem et cognitionem superat, exsistit hoc ipsum sciens, eum in omnibus tam sensilibus, quam intellectilibus exsistere. Dionys. Areopag. epist. 5. Dorotheo.
...nor does he know, in him in truth who surpasses vision and cognition, he exists, knowing this very thing: that he exists in all things both sensible and intelligible. Dionys. Areopag., *Epist. 5 to Dorotheus.*
77. Foreign-seeded words are new, strange, and born as it were of evil seed. The Alexandrian philosophers, when they wished to speak of God in the manner of Christians, used a tumid, inflated, and new style of speaking, which Pisida, like the other ecclesiastical writers, condemns as alien to sound doctrine and to the Scriptures. Nicetias in his Commentary on the orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen, after having reported the words which they used in explaining the contemplation of God, concludes: "But these things," he says, "Porphyry and Jamblichus, and that architect of monstrous words, Proclus, have babbled."
78. Listen better then. It is understood that he affirms in 18 arguments that the world is eternal.
79. See Erasmus, *Adagia*, Chil. VI, 45: "Do not despise a rustic orator," and ibid. 7, 4, *aioxpὸν σιωπᾶν*, where that which they report Aristotle said about Isocrates, "It is shameful to be silent and let Isocrates speak."
80. Mist and clouds—see above, verse 4. God is said to dwell in the "divine darkness" which is inaccessible light, and although he is unaspectable because of the exuberant brightness of his light, whoever has deserved to know God and to see him, attains to this, and by that very fact—that he neither sees nor knows, but truly becomes one who is above sight and knowledge—he knows this very thing, that he is after all sensible and intelligible things.
82. The divine darkness is the inaccessible light, in which God is said to dwell; and although he is unaspectable, due to the exuberant brightness of the light, whoever attains to know God, and has deserved to see him, reaches this, and by that very fact, that he does not see, nor know, truly being above sight and knowledge, he knows this very thing, that he is after all sensible and intelligible things.
85. Col. 1126, "roof." He proceeds to recount the works of God, which he gathers into two classes. For he speaks first of heaven, and adorns all that happens and is contained in heaven; and then he proceeds to the earth, and to those things which the earth brings forth. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Those things which Pisida relates about heaven are so obscure that I do not yet seem to have grasped his meaning. Necessity compels us, therefore, to say some things, so that we may not seem to leap into a narrow space. There was a great disagreement among the philosophers concerning the figure of the heaven, whose opinions Plutarch refers to in his book *On the Opinions of the Philosophers*. But the ancient Christians, almost all of them, since they wished to adhere more pressingly to the testimonies of Scripture, asserted that the heaven was not spherical; for when they noticed that Isaiah (XI, 22) had said of God: "Who sets the heaven as an arch, and stretches out as a tabernacle to dwell in," they said that the heaven itself had been made by the supreme Artificer vaulted and arched, and thus they believed it was conformed not to a square figure. They thought, therefore, that the heaven was contained by four, as it were, walls according to the four parts of the world, and that it embraced and contained within it the universality of all things: that it was concluded and circled above like an arch, but below was joined with the earth on four sides: so that the earth was the base and foundation of the heaven itself; for they believed most certainly that the earth stood firm nowhere, since David (Ps. CIII, 5) had said: "He has founded the earth upon its stability"; but they did not doubt that the heaven was glued to the earth, because Job (XXXVII) according to the version of the LXX Interpreters had said: "He has inclined the heaven to the earth; and it has been poured out, just as dust is, and I have glued it together like a square stone." They thought, therefore, that the world was made in the likeness of a tabernacle, of which the heaven itself was, as it were, a lid: "Because of the heaven," Theophilus says in *To Autolycus* (lib. II, 18), "that Moses called it darkness, because the heaven is like a lid."
A
90. For your Orpheus, David, beating the divine-sounding lyre,
Hexaemeron
called the heaven a skin, as having been stretched out to its lengths and depths, and having placed a foundation that nowhere has been made fast. Thou didst expand the heaven like a skin: for your Orpheus, David, beating the divine-sounding lyre, called the heaven a skin; because bodies that are on high, being arranged in the long and deep space by a simple reason, are seen covering the water with the earth.And of this kind, indeed, was the heaven which God created in the beginning; they called it supreme and invisible: but the other, lower, and which He made included in the first, they said was the firmament, in which the stars and planets wander, and they maintained that it was not spherical, but flat and stretched out like a skin, led by the authority of David. You have this portent of an opinion explained at length in the *Christian Topography* of Cosmas Indicopleustes, whom it is indeed a wonder to have been both an astronomer and to have dreamed such things. See what he babbles about this matter in lib. IV, p. 186, and VII, p. 296, and restrain yourself from laughter if you can when you have examined the tables by which he contends to explain the motions and courses of the stars according to a handed-down system. Severianus, bishop of Gabala, who is often cited by Cosmas, sets forth the same opinion: "We seek where the sun sets, and where it runs through the night; according to those outside, under the earth. But according to us, who call it a tent, what? ... Imagine a vault placed over it; the east is here according to the pattern; the north here, the south there, the west there. The sun B rising and preparing to set, does not set under the earth, but having gone out to the ends of the heaven, it runs into the northern parts; as if hidden by a certain wall, the waters not allowing its course to appear, and it runs through the northern parts, and reaches the east." We ask, however, where the sun sets and where it runs by night: according to the outsiders, under the earth; but according to us, who say that the heaven is a tabernacle, what then? ... Think of a vault placed over; the east is here, as the figure is expressed, but the north is there; opposite is the south, there is the west. When the rising sun turns toward its setting, it does not set under the earth; but having departed to the ends of the heaven, it runs through the northern parts, hidden as if by a certain wall, because the waters do not allow its course to appear, and it runs through the northern parts, and comes to the east, etc. Severianus, homily 3, 5, *On the creation of the world*. Pleasant, certainly, or rather ridiculous, are these things. But among the ancient Fathers there was less consensus on the matter; for the shape they attributed to the earth, they also affixed to the heaven, and since they supposed it to be extended only in length and width (for they did not think Antipodes could exist), they also thought the heaven was like a tent spread out above. Yet that they sensed the difficulty of the matter is clearly evident from their Commentaries on Genesis: for all, being a little unsettled by these questions, escape by repeating that saying, that these things are not to be sought by human reasonings, which God made as He willed. And Saint Basil indeed, although he does not differ much from others, yet when he had reported the opinion of the philosophers on the position of the earth, who said it occupies the middle region of the orb, he did not refute that opinion, but modestly concluded, "If anything of those things which have been said seems plausible to you, shift the wonder to the wisdom of God who ordered these things in such a way." Now if any of the things which have been said seem probable to you, transfer your admiration to the wisdom of God, who ordered these things in this way. Saint Jerome, however, in his *Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians*, did not doubt to affirm that the heaven is round and rotates in the manner of a sphere, because he had otherwise rendered the place of Isaiah cited above from the Hebrew: for he says that those who contend that the heaven hangs over the earth like a half-sphere, and that the heaven is in the likeness of a sphere, abuse the name of a 'vault,' because, forsooth, the middle part of the sphere covers the lands, whereas in the Hebrew we read not a 'vault,' but 'very fine dust.' Philoponus proved the matter more clearly, who in lib. VI, c. 14 *On the creation of the world* asserts that the heaven is spherical, and likewise the earth, and he explains the testimony of Job concerning the conglutination of the heaven with the earth in such a way that he demonstrates that Scripture agrees with Plato: "If no one has judged the shape of the heaven to be a cube, nor can it be, since it does not have a base, it remains that for the reason stated by us, the oracle called it a cube along with the earth; which is the same as to say the whole world, through which also Plato assigned the cube to the earth, not because of its shape, but because of its stability." Truly if no one judged, nor can indeed judge, the figure of the heaven to be a cube, since it has no seat, it remains that, for the reason stated by us, Scripture named it thus when taken together with the earth; which is the same as to say the whole world, and for that reason also Plato attributed a cube to the earth, not because of its shape but because of its stability. Moreover, that this opinion concerning the spherical shape of the heaven and earth had prevailed much among Christians in the time of Cosmas Indicopleustes is evident from the fact that he testifies he wrote because "some, who are thought to call themselves Christians, assume that the shape of the heaven is spherical, being deceived by solar and lunar eclipses." Some, who are counted by the name of Christians ... think the heaven to be of a spherical shape just like the external philosophers, deceived by solar and lunar eclipses. In the 2nd Prologue of *Topogr. Christ.*, p. 114. But what, then, is Pisidas's opinion? He, indeed, did not admit all these ridiculous things; but he did not depart far from them. For first he distinguishes the heaven from the Firmament. He calls the heaven in v. 85 *ouranou stegēn*, the roof of the heaven, because, as has been said, it would embrace all things in its bosom: but he calls the Firmament a *polos* (pole), so that he might designate that he has placed a distinction between the two. However, he seems not to have admitted Cosmas's opinion concerning the firmness of the upper heaven; for he calls it *aeikineton*, always mobile, and is so far from making it glued to the earth that he affirms, on the contrary, that it has no foundation by which it is supported, *bathron tetheikus mēdamou pepēgmenon*, nowhere established on a firm and compact base. He clearly indicates that it was formed like a vault or a dome above, and extended to the sides like arched work; for he does not call it spherical, but flattened into the shape of a sphere in v. 86 and 87, *Tō sphairomorphō hypsēi platynas* (having expanded it in spherical height). 87. Ps. 103, 2, "Extending the heaven like a skin." And Isaiah 40, 22. "Who extends the heaven as nothing, and expands them as a tabernacle to be inhabited." Pisidas understands the Firmament, which he says was stretched out into long and deep, that is, wide spaces: and that well, and by a certain simple reason, he decides it agrees with the motions of the heavenly bodies. How Christian philosophers explained these things is to be seen in Cosmas Indicopleustes, and can be understood from the adduced passage of Severianus.
On the Simplicity of the Bodies Above
A Even if some keen-sighted person has said that it holds semblances of smoke, When the flight of the eyes wanders in vain Toward the dim contemplation of [its] downward inclination— Or like a half-cut sphere of an arch Raised from above, or curved, Or even borne down toward itself; For from the celestial rotations above, Another appears hidden from below; In order that it may have as a support the foundation in Thee, Established upon a base that is not established. For it is raised above and made deep below, And it is extended toward the chasm of its breadth. It maintains distances equal to the circle; Being stationary, it flees, and darting, it awaits; And it has stability in motion in an ineffable way. It runs contrary to the whole, Lest the combined movement of the plates, Suffering a push, should burst forth in its tension. For in opposing things there is reasonably a course, Or the tendency of speed, pushed in return, Restrains the tightness of the rotations, Toward the tension of the plates in a straight line, Lest the swiftness of the motion be brought down In the void of the downward paths. But just as if bound into a connection It is held together by the counter-turnings of the speed.
B ...serves its distances; and thus it flees while standing, and remains while fleeing, and possesses its state in an ineffable manner in motion. It runs, and its course holds contrary to this universe of things, lest if all were borne toward the same part by one impulsive force, the celestial bodies, snatched away by the force of the impulse, should yield in that very contention and, failing, be broken apart. But it is very convenient for them to be carried around by contrary courses, because the velocity of one, resisting the velocity of the other by an opposing effort, constricts the bond of the circular revolutions, tempered by the force of the projection into a straight line; lest by such great vehemence of course the heaven itself might fall through [the space] wherever the surrounding bodies run, but might be held fast and compressed, as if by a certain bond, though by an opposing force. C ...and makes God the basis of what moves most rapidly and stands nowhere: he determines that heaven itself is turned around by a motion contrary to the earth; but he explains other things concerning motion by means of antitheses, in which he is very excellent; for he says that through the contrary motion of heaven and the planets, the order of things is preserved: because if all celestial bodies were driven around together with the heaven toward the same part, since there would be nothing to retard the force and impetus of the movement, they themselves, snatched away by force and impetus, would be carried through the void with no order preserved among them. D ...Here I think Pisidas has taken a metaphor from charioteers, comparing the planets and stars proceeding toward the same part to horses yoked to a chariot, which are driven and urged on by one charioteer. ...of the excited bodies. See the last verses of the poem *On the Vanity of Life*, where the human mind is assimilated to a charioteer. ...The verse is clearly necessary to attain the mind of Pisidas: for whether you prefer... for it is always agreed that the poet wished to assign a reason why celestial bodies, restrained and bound together by contrary force, hold together: for by the force of projection they tend along a straight line; but then, by another force supervening, they are compelled to yield by degrees, and to be bent toward a certain composite motion, which is the generation of a circle.
With a running base and a fixed motion. It is the summit of all summits, And the boundary of all definitions; It stands apart from all things that are content, A Nothing is a measure of it, as it is without measure. Hence, those who have been entangled by it, as if it were great, As if it were wide, as if it were infinite, as if it were uplifted, Have fashioned it in myths, as in the labors of Atlas, Having a support of long columns; Perhaps they intended to represent, by the impression of the image, The long depths of the unknown By way of baseless pillars. For it is great, as a small throne of God, B And it knows no aging, and has no decline, As long as the Word who established it turns it.
*NOTES.* I think that by "base" he means the heavens, or the celestial spheres; by "motion," the course of the stars, which are fixed and remain in their own spheres, while they move by a motion contrary to the spheres themselves, as pleased Aristotle, who in Book II of *On the Heavens*, declaring it absurd that either the spheres move all together and the stars, or that the spheres stand still and the stars move, concludes thus: C Accordingly, since it is not reasonable for both to move, nor for the star alone, it remains that the spheres move, while the stars remain at rest, and being fixed to the spheres are carried... the depths of all the sea he knows. And he himself has long columns which hold around both the earth and the heaven. ...and one would wonder that in so much time it has preserved its beauty in its prime, and that by how much time advances, by so much is its beauty extended... that he had the Word as the minister of the things that were made by him, and that through him he made all things. Being declared... to produce a creature, he made this a generated God, never to be corrupted by any other cause, except by God, by whom he was ordered, if ever he should wish to resolve him... For these reasons, and from such things, and from the number four, the body of the world was generated, by analogy agreeing; and it had friendship from these things, so that, having joined together into the same [nature], it could not be dissolved by others, except by the one who bound it together.
A It is adorned with the great tunic, The air, woven with a strange shuttle; Fluid, translucent, thin, rarefied, Entering into every bodily work. Coming forth adorned like a bridegroom, Having taken the translucent stars as pearls. It has upon its breast one lychnite, Like fire shining towards the day; And another, of white fire, towards the feet, Revealing a white evening everywhere; It guards all nature, as if in a prison; It keeps the elements by fencing them all in; It becomes the bosom of everything that moves, And reaches every motion, moving all things with it; It carries the earth, like a point, in the midst. Fixed, though suspended on no foundation, B It supports the world-moving goad— And binds the abyss, as if in swaddling clothes; It circles the whole as if in a net; It tightens everything, held by You alone; And having enclosed such a mass within, It is itself compressed from without by [Your] breadth; For the immeasurable extent of the heavens, when measured, Becomes a narrow point in comparison to You. O Creator, O You who created all things with wisdom, O Artificer of the many-turning roof! C For You mark out every nature, as You wish, By Your dioptra, and provide a roof for those below, And for those dwelling around, in a sheltered canopy, Setting the ether ablaze and burning it, Yet not scorching the creation with the heat, But adjusting every nature as seems good to You.
D [index: entries preserved]
A You reveal to us the hidden essences of the angels, as spirit or igniloquent flame, describing their fervent and agile nature; or You represent them under the species of a quadriform image, that You may exhibit their depicted variety and firmness; or You disclose the vast number of eyes in them, so that they may see your light more manifest, and that nothing of the things which are done and move below may escape them. For to You, as to the victor, the Cherubim, the Principalities, and the armies of the Thrones sing hymns; and every Seraph, in his immobile velocity, stands flying and runs while standing fast.
B NOTES.
167. *Idem Cod.* B *When the poet speaks of the angels behind the heaven, and in the heaven itself, not before the heaven and the world were created, he seems to design them as having been created.* The holy Fathers and most ample doctors stand by both opinions, for nothing is found in the history of Moses concerning their creation. Petavius, who treats this question at length, lib. 1, *de angelis*, rightly concludes only this: that neither of these opinions is supported by the certain authority of Scripture: for he affirms too confidently that their opinion is entirely exploded who say that angels were created with the world. And indeed, if we consider that Pisida treats of the angels before he touches upon the creation of the sun and the stars, that is, of light, we shall not rashly deduce from that that he believed them to have been produced with the world, and that he differs not at all from Saint Augustine, who, *lib. xx, Contra Faustum*, and *lib. ii, De Genesi ad litt.*, and *lib. xi, De civit. Dei*, supposed that Moses, under the name of light, had made mention of the angels. See what we have said concerning the substance of the angels at the first verse of the lecture; and thence it will appear why he calls them *ἀδήλους οὐσίας*, unknown substances: for he knew that the Fathers had defined nothing certain, as we shall also observe presently.
168. *Idem cod.* C *Spirit.* It has been keenly disputed by what power of this word between Nic. Gudlingius and Jac. Zimmermann, while both, contending for their own opinion, explained a passage of Plato in the *Philebus*, page... edited by Serranus: namely, that God showed from those things which are, the finite and the infinite. For Gudlingius affirmed that *τὸ παραγαγόν* must be rendered as "poured forth," "led forth," "made to emanate"; but Zimmermann contended more correctly that its meaning is that of *τὸ παράγον*, to signify "created," "made," or "exhibited for viewing." These things are to be seen in Schelhornius, *Amenit. Litter. tom. XII, p. 481*. But Pisida certainly usurped it for "followed," for he followed David saying, *ὁ ποιῶν τοὺς ἀγγέλους, κ. τ. λ.* But perhaps he preferred to use the Platonic word, by which he might extricate himself from the difficulty concerning the nature of the angels, of which the Fathers have spoken so variously; for if he had used *ποιῶν*, it might perhaps have been feared that to the men of that time he might have seemed to make the angels corporeal, which he certainly did not wish to affirm. As I suppose, he had read Saint Gregory Nazianzen, saying at the end of *orat. 35*: *Making their angels spirits, and their ministers a flame of fire*: unless perhaps in this place "making" signifies nothing other than to protect and preserve them by the same reason by which they were first created... D ...but let them be clearly incorporeal, or approaching as nearly as possible to this. Do you see how we are agitated concerning such discourse, and have nowhere to proceed? And *orat.*: *Whether we ought to think of angels as spirits endowed with mind, or fire as devoid of material and body, or some other nature approaching as nearly as possible to those which we have mentioned, we must believe.* *Πυρίστομον* [means] igniloquent, or mouth of flame.
169. *Τὸ θερμὸν* [stands] for *θερμότης*, heat, force fervent: *καὶ τομὸν* for the cutting nature, as active and subtle.
170. *Τετραμόρφῳ*, constitutes the angels quadriform. It is plain that he followed Ezekiel, who describes in chap. 1, 6, the wonderful vision of the throne of God, saying of the Cherubim: *And four faces were to one, and four wings to one.* For the fourfold form of the angels, one must consult the commentators on Ezekiel, and especially Pradus, and Villalpandus, Bonfretius, and Calmet. See also the 157th epistle of Photius, which is an explanation of the same argument.
172. *Cod.* C *And the whole body full of eyes in the circuit of the four.* And *ibid. x, 12. And their whole body, and their necks, and their hands, and their wings, and the circles, were full of eyes, in the circuit of the four wheels.* Severianus *orat. De creat. mundi*: says, *Therefore the Cherubim are full of eyes... because wisdom looks from every side, and has the eye opened from every side.*
173. Of the intelligence of the angels, and in what way it exists in men, Pseudo-Dionysius has more, which concord with Pisida.
174. D Pisida elicits from Isaiah vi, 2, an invincible argument to establish the mystery of the most holy Trinity, which all the Fathers have used: *Seraphim were standing in his circuit: six wings were to one, and six wings to another: with two they veiled his face, and with two they veiled his feet, and with two they flew; and they cried Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of Hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory.* For *Sabaoth*, or Lord of Hosts, Pisida has *νικηφόρῳ*. Concerning the Trisagion, by which Isaiah showed that the image of the Trinity had been presented to him, see Dionysius, *De cœlesti hierar. cap. 7*.
175. Concerning the three hierarchies of the angels, each of which contains three orders, *ibid. cap. 6*.
176. Of the Seraphim, and their name, *ibid. cap. 7*. But why they are said to consist in motion with an immobile velocity is explained at length in the Scholia of Saint Maximus, the Paraphrase of Pachymeres, and the notes of Corderius on the same chapter: where the Seraphim are said to have a triple mobility, namely of nature, of intelligence, and of will, and all things which are handed down concerning them are rightly referred to denote the Trinity.
A
With two wings they cover the aspect of the face, 180 And with two the feet, And with two they fly aloft in a great flight. And the triple-radiant beam of holiness They join into one worship of the Lord; Showing clearly by the division, 185 And by the connection of the God-flowing Word, That we must worship the hypostases distinctly, But worship the essence in unity; Declaring by an expressive orthodoxy, That the Sonship of the Word becoming flesh 190 Does not descend into a foreign quaterni- ty—But in one person, and in one Godhead, To hymn before the flesh, and according to the account of the flesh, The same one to be man and God by nature, Not poured out by addition, nor by division 195 Suffering cutting, nor turned by confusion, Double the simple, nowhere mingled, For Christ is the double unique nature— Thou who for the beauty of bodies on high Hast planted a meadow of many stars, 200 And adorning the night, and decking the day; And purifying the light, and darkening the evening, And cultivating fire, and sowing water,
[LATIN] for with two wings they cover the aspect of his face, and with two the feet, and with still two others they are raised on high: and that beam of holiness, coruscating with triple light, they join in one, worshipping the one Lord. From which division and conjunction of the Word flowing from God, they most clearly demonstrate that we must worship the hypostases separately, but adore the substance conjointly: and by an orthodox explanation they declare that the Son Word is incarnate, and has not been distracted into a foreign quaternity. For they proclaim in the Word one person and one primacy of God, as well before as after the assumed flesh, him indeed man and God by nature, which is neither diffused by adjunction, nor has suffered partition by division, nor been changed by confusion: and he is the same, double and simple, and immune from all commixture: for Christ is of a double unique nature. B Thou who, that the beauty of celestial bodies might be greater, hast sown a meadow from many stars. Thou adornest the night, thou deckest the day with a garment. Thou renderest the light pure, and makest the evening black. Thou cultivatest fire, and sowest in water: which two are the common treasures of the poor.
A Thou that pourest out the subtle air; for I return again to that same subject, and speaking of it now, I breathe it more. To that which flows everywhere and is yet fixed, the even-balanced measurer of the breath, the plenteous stream, the silverless gift. For no rich man, no potentate shall seize from it remnants of excessive breath; but it proceeds to all with equal grace, and appears to all simple, and manifold, in indivisible divisions, in unconfused inflows. B In the distribution of breaths, it is united; in its pouring forth everywhere, it is joined together. O Thou that hast created this giant, the sun! For I am eager to speak to it again, looking insatiably and writing of the sun, the common eye, the all-seeing pupil, the all-nourishing fire, which beneath the earth is the evening, and above the earth is the worker of the day, the cosmic mirror, or contrariwise the optic spark, the radiance of the eyes, or a drawing-in of light, or a strange nature, taking on receptions in its introductions. C
NOTES
The substance of fire is necessary to the whole, not only for the economy of terrestrial things, but also for the completion of the universe; for the whole would be maimed if it were lacking in this greatest and most opportune of all elements. St. Basil, hom. 5, 5.
204. *Thou that pourest out, subtle matter.* Thus Pisides gracefully calls the air, of which St. Basil speaks in Homily 4: "We shall contemplate the diffused air, soft and by nature humid, furnishing its own and perpetual nourishment to those that breathe, yielding and allowing itself to be cut through by moving bodies by reason of its simplicity, so that there may be no obstacle to those hastening through it: since it always retreats easily to the rear of those who cleave it, and flows around."
205. *Above, v. 135,* he called it the garment of the heavens.
208. *Even-balanced,* from true *eu*, and *talanton* (balance), and *ponderans* (weighing).
209. *I return,* that is, I come again, I revert.
210. *Who is it that poured out the air,* this great and plenteous wealth, not meted out by worth, nor by fortunes, not governed by boundaries, not divided by age; but distributed according to the distribution of the manna, contained in sufficiency, and honored with equality? Who, I say, made this vehicle of birds, this seat of winds, this element in which even the parts of the year are tempered, and living things are animated, or rather by which the soul is preserved with the body; in which are our bodies, and with which is our speech? etc. D
215. *The same God, being united.* In the following verse it is joined. The same thing is held by St. Gregory Nazianzen, ibid., by whom he is called "beautiful as a bridegroom, swift as a giant and great," which is in Ps. XVIII, 6. *The giant shall exult to run his course.*
220. *The world's pupil,* he calls the sun with poetic elegance. St. Basil, Hom. 6, 4, called it the pellucid eye, nature's eye. Examples of the voice "all-seeing" I have not found elsewhere.
221. *14:14 Let there be lights in the firmament, and let them divide the day and the night.* And Ps. CIII, 23: *Man shall go forth to his work and to his labor until the evening.* St. Gregory Nazianzen, orat. 34: "How does he create the day when he is above the earth, and the night when he is beneath the earth?" Vid. S. Basil. hom. 6, 3.
225. He touches upon different opinions regarding the substance of the sun and vision, which is brought about by the emission of solar rays. When he calls the sun the mirror of the world, he understands the solar rays' illusion to the eyes, which was indeed the opinion of Empedocles, from which later philosophers do not much dissent, who think that vision is the reception into the retina of many rays gathered together; when, however, he calls it the visible spark, the flashing of the eyes, he means the rays, [cont.]
A for not one thing of its course was hidden from it. It suffices for all things by the inclination of its ray; it reaches even to the depth of the boundaries; 250 and it possesses sources of light that move the cosmos; for it is the common worker-at-ease of those things below. It runs in the opposite direction to the whole; so that the intensity of its course, being unswerving, may be tightened from the opposite sides of the downward courses, 255 and the tension of the windings may not be broken in the straight straining of the coils. But as if tightened into a junction by the counter-windings, it is held together by the speed. With a foot-base running along, and a course made fixed, 260 for if it were not well-ordered but had turned aside, it would have set the cosmos burning in a moment. O, you who have kindled the dim lamp of the moon from the fire-shining sun—for you lend to it a pale light from yourself, 245 I do not know how they speak, but yet perhaps not as having need of another’s light.
For it either sends forth from the eyes or receives; or finally there is another nature of things, which provides this one thing, that objects are introduced and received. For it pervades all things, and nothing is hidden from it, B and by its vibration of rays it suffices for all. It reaches even to the extremity of the abyss, and has perennial fountains of light, which agitate the mass of the world and mingle themselves with it. It stirs up as many as are here below to their work. But it holds a course contrary to the terrestrial globe, so that the most vehement impetus of the heaven itself, which never declines, may be constrained by the bodies running along on the opposite side, and the bond of the circles may not be broken by the force of the objects thrown striving in a straight line; but as if constrained into one and the same society of consent from the opposite side, by that very contrary effort of velocity—the foundation, namely, the heaven, running, and that which is carried, namely the earth, resting—it is detained. For if it did not preserve this order, but turned aside from it, whithersoever it might vergingly incline even a little, the world would immediately be consumed by fire.
You have lit the moon's dark lamp from the sun's igneous rays: for they say the moon itself borrows its pale splendor from the sun; a thing which, though I know not by what reasoning they say it, not that anyone would plainly dare to note you as lacking in an alien illumination, C when... [Notes follow] ...for it brings back the same things which it affirmed concerning the motion of the heaven to the motion of the sun here; for it gladly returns to this, that it may prove that things are so constituted by God that, while they seem to fight among themselves, they are nevertheless held together, bound by their discord, each in its own order. Pisida does not dissent much from the opinion of Empedocles, who, according to Plutarch in *De placitis philosoph.*, lib. 2, 25, says: *The sun is held back by the sphere containing it, and by tropic circles, that it may not run straight out to the ends of the universe.* What if one were to say that in these contrary motions and conversions of the heaven, the sun, and the stars, by which Pisida seems to constitute his celestial system, those much-celebrated laws of attraction after Kepler and Newton were, as if by an unskilled hand, adumbrated and expressed? And that Pisida’s *tension* is nothing other than the centripetal and centrifugal force of the moderns? These hexameters are cited by Isaac Tzetzes in the *Scholia to Lycophron*, v. 1467.
...others, who thought it had its own, but a sub-obscure light; others, finally, who thought it had its own, and also borrowed from the sun. Following the first of these three opinions, Pisida calls the moon a dark lamp, which God kindles with the fire of the sun: which, however, he himself asserts only hesitatingly, fearing indeed lest he seem to depart from Scripture, in which the moon is called a lesser luminary. See Saint Basil, *Homily* 4, 3, who fruitlessly contends that the same reasoning must be held concerning the light of the sun and the moon: namely, that both luminaries are as it were certain lanterns, which, lit from elsewhere, bring light to men, and by a vicarious lot illuminate the earth.
A (For you pour forth, yourself, the light even before the sun) But so that a rhythm might be placed upon the creation By a beautiful necessity, and a wise authority, And for the one that is lacking a lamp, To bring in moisture-producing supports; For heat needs a moist blending, While it expresses the moisture set within The heat of the pouring flame; So that a mixing may occur, as if in a marriage, And the two having been joined for the sake of bearing, Shall show forth the offspring of the sown things with art, The moon having received the hot bridegroom. He who created nothing hostile, nor for fighting, But as a housemaster, a father to sisters, Peace-making among the opposite natures, And showing the order of the unordered fourfold— So that this world, as a great house, Shall be unbreakable, in the likeness of four rams. B
[Latin rendering:] ...ipse ante solem lucem effuderis; sed potius putent, te quemdam illius pulchræ necessitatis, sapientisque potestatis modulum, et rhythmum, quo res creatæ constant, te voluisse constituere: adeo ut sicut luna indiget solaris lampadis calore, ita illa in ipsum suæ humidæ substantiæ quædam veluti mutua subsidia immittat; quod enim calidum est humidi conjunctionem expetit: ac sol contra, qui totus fervens est, sua flammarum effusione inditos lunæ vapores exprimat: unde quædam fiat commistio, tanquam in connubio, et duobus ad pariendum coeuntibus, ex utriusque semine felices enascantur liberi, eo quod luna calidum sibi sponsum acceperit. Tu nil sibi inimicum, nil inter se dimicans creasti: sed quod prudentis est patrisfamilias, contrarias naturas, tanquam sorores, pacis vinculo colligasti, et in discordi ipsarum quaternione ordinem, concordiamque inesse fecisti, ut mundus iste universus, magnæ domus instar, immotus staret, et...
NOTES
247. When the Fathers read in the Holy Scriptures that the sun was produced on the fourth day, they said that the light was indeed made formless and imperfect on the first day, but that it was perfected and completed on the fourth day. Saint Basil, Hom. 6, 2: "For then the nature of light itself was produced; but now this solar body has been prepared to be a vehicle for that first-born light." One must see here what the difference is between splendor and illumination.
248. This savors of Platonism, the rhythm, or harmony, which is discerned between that which is necessary and that which commands necessity. Plato in *Timaeus*, vol. III, p. 47: "It remains that we pursue in speech those things which were made by necessity. For this creation of the world was mixed: for it was begotten from the combination of necessity and intelligence. Since, therefore, the mind and intelligence of the Creator, being superior to necessity, commanded it and compelled it to obey, so that as many things as possible might be born and brought to a certain optimum state: in this way, with necessity yielding to the wise command of that mind, this universe was constituted in the beginning." Thus, both for Plato and for Pisides, God is the primary efficient cause who created the world, while *ananke* (necessity) is either the form impressed upon matter, or that law by which created things are destined to fulfill their own functions, whence that rhythm or harmony is constituted, by which we see all things ruled and tempered, as Plato says in the same place. This is also gathered more clearly from the beginning of the dialogue which is inscribed *Timaeus Locrus*. Cicero explains these things most beautifully, *Acad. quaest.* lib. 2, near the middle, and Plutarch, *De plac. philos.* lib. 1, cap. 26. Moreover, Pisides expressed through Platonic turns those words of Genesis 1, 16: "God made two great lights that he might rule the day"; and Ps. 136, 7: "Who made the sun in the power of the day, light and the stars in the power of the night." C
251. As for the moon and its humid quality, and what is usually said, and what can be supported, these are to be looked at in the natural philosophers, and in Plutarch, *De facie in orbe lunae*, where, besides other things which agree with Pisides, this is to the point: "Since the temperature of the moon itself is not fiery, nor arid, but soft and watery: for no effect of dryness reaches us from the moon, but much of humidity and feminine fertility." Aristotle, however, *De hist. animal.* lib. 2, cap. 2, mocks those who attribute a feminine sex to the moon, because it happens that women have blood-flows when the moon is waning. D
255. The Greeks, as is agreed by the poets, have called the moon the daughter and sister of the sun; Pisides makes her his wife. I would not unwillingly assert that this was expressed from Plutarch, who at the end of the same book, *De facie lunae*, says thus: "For they say that the moon itself is also revolved by the love of the sun, and joins with it, desiring to receive offspring."
259. Saint Basil, hom. 4, 5, excellently [explains this], who affirms that by the fellowship which each element has with its kindred, it is joined to its contrary: "And thus, with all things consenting and having a certain mutual order among themselves, a circle is made, and a mutual chorus." See Aristotle *De mundo*, cap. 5, and those things which are above at verse 145.
263. Maximus of Tyre, dissert. 1 in fin.: "The heaven, as if a wall driven in a circle, keeping all things within itself unbreakable; and the earth, as a guard and bonds of heavy bodies..."
—having taken a support that pushes back. A Thus you join together the incompatible natures, and you persuade these to remain in one cohabitation, their conflict breathing in unison toward one purpose, so that henceforth their path is common to them, and they perform their accustomed ministries. One weaves an airy web of works, a delicate fabric for the breathing of life; another, in turn, spinning unbroken threads from fire, makes a garment to warm nature; yet another, in turn, bringing rainy water according to custom, lest the heat, by way of corruption, cause an ebullition; and the earth makes a becoming dwelling, and feasts us all day by day. Thus, beyond the mind, you have wrought the essences, A in the appearance of battle, united.
And the fiery extremity of summer does not immediately turn its heat into winter (for sudden changes are harmful to things gathered together), but it grows the cool softly toward autumn and the middle temperament. Thence it passes not immediately to sheer heat, but to spring, and imperceptibly it pushes off the frost and gathers the heat. And they do these things in a mutual course, like girls dancing together at the same time, and joining their fingers, so that they might weave a dance for a well-measured life. How your all-creating power has been clearly magnified in the works of your wisdom!
NOTE
265. One thought it should be read thus, because he found the meaning obscure; but nothing must be changed. You will remove the obscurity if you take the participle that is placed in the following verse, with a hyperbaton familiar to the Greeks, and make it serve the word—a concordant discord of elements, as has been said at verses 145 and 259.
267. Compare Codex 1126, *tautas perideis*.
270. Supplement from Codex 1126: Saint John Chrysostom, hom. 6, 5: "But each of the elements, remaining within its own limits, never exceeds its own measure, but keeping the disposition of the Master, it fulfills its own operation."
271. Better: "an airy-stamen work" (an opus made of airy thread). See above, verse 135.
274. Codex 1126, *to thalpsa*.
275. *Enombros*, rainy. Lexica have *eombros* and *epombros*.
281. See Saint Basil, hom. 6, 8, excellently describing the succession of the four seasons. Aristotle, *De mundo*, cap. 5: "What better order could there be than this which the beautiful and fruitful seasons of the universe keep, bringing in summers and winters in an orderly way, and days and nights for the completion of the month and of the year?"
290. An elegant comparison, which philosophers and poets frequently use. See Plato in *Timaeus*, p. 40, and Aristotle, *De mundo*, cap. 6, who makes God the chorus-leader, to whom all created things sing. Rightly does Pisides compare the parts of the year to girls who, while dancing, join their fingers, for the last part of one preceding becomes the first part and beginning of the one following; and thus they gradually succeed one another. Hence the Greeks used to divide the individual seasons of the year into three parts: thus they called the first autumn and the last summer; then autumn already confirmed and adult; finally the last autumn and already waning, and the first winter. Saint Gregory Nazianzen, orat. 12, demonstrating the utility of peace, says thus: "The parts of the year, when they are placidly mixed with one another, and gradually yield to each other—not only for the use and convenience of men, but even for their pleasure—mitigate the harshness of the extremes by their intermediacy, and are governed by peace." See Maximus of Tyre, dissert. 25, p. 255, edited by John Davis.
294. *Pantopoios*, all-effecting (omnia efficiens).
HEXAEMERON
A The season of winter; and the trees, in short order, Are withered by the burning tongs of the cold, Their beauty fades, the branches grow weak, The leaf falls away, just like hairs from a corpse. And in a little while, he scrapes away the decay, And again brings beauty and new hairs, The beauty brings forth shoots, and the beauty [brings forth] the leaves as hairs, And from the unseen tombs they awaken Toward the customary resurrection of the race. The season of summer; I have no words to explain How that fiery sun, in such a way, In the identity of time and of manner, Here darkens the skin by scorching, There again shows the bodies white. And it dries the shoots of the things sown, But it makes the moisture of the pores liquid; For it mingles them with the path toward the air, And binds the heat to the moist traveler, So that the climax of the qualities within them May be tempered in the intermediate state; And so that the heat may not scorch effectively, When the moist sap is not present in it. B
How this fiery sun, by the identity of time and course, in one place brings on dark colors by scorching, but in another place conversely marks bodies white: here it dries out the crops and the produce of the sower, and there it makes humors liquid and flowing. For in its course through the air, it mingles one thing with another, and joins the dry to the moist, which has a companion on its way, so that the total intensity of the qualities that is in both may be tempered by a certain intermediate ratio, lest the heat, by its excessive efficacy, burn, if moist vapors are not present together at the same time: and likewise, lest it proceed into an excessive…
NOTES
295. Saint Basil, hom. 6, describes the four seasons less elegantly than Pisida, thus regarding winter: "Winter comes... so that the air is cooled, and all the moist exhalations collected around us provide the cause and origin of rains, of frosts, and of untold snow."
296. He explains the power of the cold by the metaphor of the tongs, by which fire is stirred: for the effect of cold and fire is nearly the same, though from a different cause. Virgil, Georg. I, 93: "The piercing cold of Boreas burns."
299. A little later, the description of Spring from Saint Basil, ibid., is this: "And Spring arrives, for all plants indeed the author of germination, but to most trees offering a revival, and to all animals, terrestrial and aquatic alike, preserving the race through the succession of those born thereafter."
300. Cod. 1126, "the hair grows."
301. The description of Summer, which the holy Basil follows, ibid., thus: "Toward the summer solstices, the sun, driving back to the north, brings us the longest of days; and because it lingers for a very long time in the air, it scorches the air hanging above our heads, and dries up the whole earth, and by this means it cooperates with the seeds for their growth, and urges the fruits of the trees toward ripening."
305. Cod. 1126, "of the place and of the time."
307. Five zones that hold the heaven, he indicates, especially the torrid one, whose inhabitant, in every direction… C as it stretches through Asia, Africa, and America, are seen infected with a certain blackness; and the temperaments which are inhabited by humans who possess a white body. Pisida rightly marvels at how this is done, yet he shows an opportune cause: for nothing more plausible has been brought forward by recent philosophers—Wiston, Tournefort, Torunsio, Albinus, Boullion, and Maupertuis—concerning the diversity of colors in human bodies, than that which the ancients said, who referred this whole matter to the power of solar rays.
509. Cod. 1126, "of the seeds." The things that follow are spoken for explaining the power of the sun and for demonstrating various effects which fire and water, or, as it pleases the physicists, the dry and the moist, produce when joined and mixed together. Saint Basil, hom. 5: "Therefore, the creation of heat is necessary for the constitution and endurance of the things that come into being; the abundance of moisture is also necessary, because the consumption of the fire is constant and inevitable."
510. Cod. 1126, D "mingles," for "traveler, attendant, moist traveler, attendant."
511. Cod. 1126 has "it mingles it," and "it binds," which is more agreeable by the rule of prosody: as if Pisida were addressing the sun. And indeed it happens more often that our author transfers speech from the third person to the second. It also came to mind that for "traveler" I might read "attendant," for I do not doubt that either the moisture is a companion, or the moon is an attendant to the sun, and therefore the understanding of these verses depends entirely on the preceding and following ones.
A nor let the flow of moisture slip away To an extreme, if left to itself; But just as if two laborers were at one work, The moisture drenches, and casts in the grass, And brings forth the unripe fruits of autumn, In which it stretches out many fine ropes, Lest the looseness of the fruits be weighted down, And it suffer crushing by the tightening of the knot, And thus the moisture of the autumn fall away. Since the sprout has need of hardening, But the thickness of the pores has need of loosening, Warmth, meeting both as one, Loosening and tightening by a strange reasoning, Fills what is lacking with conflicting gifts; And for the grass it sprouts a steady root; But having made the juices boil in the thin fruit, B It seasons the food with dew as if it were flesh. Just as also with us, the raw state of the heart The spark of the intelligible sun falling upon it Warms, softens, and ripens, and nourishes, And places fruit within from fruitlessness. You, disposing the elements like the four-horse position Of a chariot, and charioteering the times In seven-circled circuits of days, And guiding the axle of life With custom's rhythm, and a wheel that has advanced; And keeping together the bonding gates, Lest the vehicle of custom run out, And send a slaughter, and disturb the sight, And cast a dissolution of public-destroying battle. But so that the course of all might be ordained, And we might see nothing self-governed,
NOTE
From these it is possible to infer the heating that occurs in the air from the solar ray, how great it is, and of what kind of symptoms it is productive; thence the season of autumn, taking us over, breaks the excess of the heat, and by gradually relaxing the warmth, through the mediocrity of the tempering, safely leads us through itself to winter. Let some Dionysian bring me a gift of autumn.
A That all thy creation is a common servant, And that it does not run bound toward dissolution; Nor, again, does it pass beyond fixed boundaries, (Unless thou alone shouldst effect the change, For thou hast foreseen, providing for what is profitable;) That it should introduce thy creation, the work of thy hands, Which is the greatest, to world-destroying alterations; Nor, again, that it remains immutable, but has boundaries Of mutable necessity, that it might not, by escaping through time, Be thought by those who see it, O God, to be the creation itself. For who, seeing the moon or the sun Becoming dim with the disease of eclipse, Did not straightway know, with nature as teacher, That they would not have exchanged the light for darkness, If they were not subjected to lights that suffer? B Or who, having recognized and contemplated the same star As both Phosphoros and Hesperos, Does not know it to be a worker of twofold courses, A herald of the night, and a prophet of the day? Who, seeing this greatest heaven, And the violence it possesses in perpetual motion, And the stars, those most cohesive of all, Now towards the north, and now making the movements of the south— In a sally, or in a change of place— Or the abyss of the poured-out air, Now growing cold and again being ignited, And suffering forced assaults, C ...those in the heaven, which sense observes as gods, must not be thought to be self-governing, having obtained the rank that belongs to them, but as having been made dependent by nature. It was necessary, therefore, that there should be neither sedition among them against each other, nor that occasion should be given to the universe for dissolution through the complete failing of another. ...work of my hands, I do not attribute to it the substance that it does not have; nor, abandoning God, do I worship the elements, to which nothing more is permitted than what they were commanded. Water was gathered together... the earth was filled... but the sun and moon were not yet: so that they should neither name the sun the author and father of light, nor should those who have been ignorant of God consider him the creator of things growing from the earth. ...self-governing... when it is Hesperos, following the sun so far that it is not eclipsed by its rays; when it is Eous, it precedes the sun, and rises before the dawn; a sweet prophet...
A Having considered the unchangeable essence, shall one not think that the ever-changing creation is a servant? Who, seeing the seething, or the hail, or the outpouring of darkness, or fire sent down, or damp soot, or the earth trembling and failing, does not know that the reeling creation is a servant? Who, watching the sea as it becomes unstable, does not know it to be like some fugitive, which, having often boiled with a cold heat and with the disorderly onsets of its currents, strikes the whole of itself, like a wild maenad, against the earth, and rages, B and grows bold and widens its mouth, and cries out much, and spews out foam, and is entangled in the swell at its lips? And having drunk in the springs of many currents, it vomits out undigested brine from its depth. And it is disturbed by the fullness of its drunkenness, and it wishes to break its bonds and to escape, but it is pulled back, and is afraid, and remains, and does not pass by the watery gates, but runs back within itself, as if a servant held by her hair. For the creation is scourged for our benefit, that we might be brought to our senses by an uninflicted fear,
NOTES
C ...the sea, again it was dissolved back into itself, not overstepping its proper place, so to speak, fearing a certain divine command; and just as often one of the servants, being forced against his will to do something by his master, obeys the command because of fear, but since he does not wish to do what he is suffering, he does not dare to say anything, but grumbles within himself, filled with a certain anger; in this way, it seemed to me that the sea also, as if angered, and containing within itself the wrath—not wishing itself to reveal its anger to the Master—that... how does it stand: released within its own boundaries? How does it rise and stand, as if revering the neighboring D earth? ...the sea, again it was dissolved back into itself, not overstepping its proper place, so to speak, fearing a certain divine command; and just as often one of the servants, being forced against his will to do something by his master, obeys the command because of fear, but since he does not wish to do what he is suffering, he does not dare to say anything, but grumbles within himself, filled with a certain anger; in this way, it seemed to me that the sea also, as if angered, and containing within itself the wrath—not wishing itself to reveal its anger to the Master—that it was indeed, as it were, held by bridles, and unwilling to manifest its fury to the Lord.
387. Cod. 1126, of the spirits.
596. Ps. ciii, 9: You have set a bound that they shall not pass over, neither turn again to cover the earth. Saint Gregory Nazianzen, orat. 54: How does it stand, even though free and unleashed, yet consist within its own boundaries? ...how does it rise, and yet keep itself in its own place, as if revering the neighboring earth? ...through a long digression he admires the one who, in the restraining of created things, shows the majesty of his own formidable power, that we might learn from it how ready is his justice to punish our crimes.
A By the sparing care of the Artificer of all things, let us be brought low, as children are by the fear of a rod, or as even the small dogs, when struck, tame the boldness of lions. He who grants delays until the end for the overdue deadlines of debts, B and stops sin in its tracks by fear, and uses force to save life, and does not judge immediately when we have erred; but the creation is struck, and suffers the punishments of my offenses, wounded by another’s stripe C just as in the spreading of pestilential disease, while others have the incision of the wounds, the danger of the suffering creeps to others. And I am now transported in my mind: How does the Judge, who decrees just things for all, accept persons, and by a benevolent relationship, when one has slipped, drags another to justice? And how does he who judges, to those who judge judgment, [show] boldness [and] power; [with] another’s stripe, by word, by law, by prophets, by benefits, by threats, by plagues, by waters, by fires, by wars, by victories, by defeats, by signs from the sky, from the earth, from the sea, by unexpected changes of men, cities, [and] nations, by which [he sought] to crush wickedness. They are ignorant of the loss of injustice, which it is least fitting to be ignorant of; for it is not what they think—plagues and deaths—which they sometimes suffer while doing nothing unjust, but that which is impossible to flee.
A He blames those who receive gifts for a great crime, Yet he is himself eager to receive gifts, 425 Having the poor as his own sufficient ministers— (As if one were to call them his reliable household stewards) From whom he demands that they betray justice. He throbs for their sake, not fearing reproach, And receives the will more than the gold; 450 And by means of a small loaf of bread, he forces the laws.
He is even dragged along by sighs, if he might receive; And is charmed by a cup of cold water. And he provides for himself the taking of warm tears; And he often descends to the smallest trifle, 455 Seeking a pretext to steal justice. And he tears up many indictable contracts, And the volumes of ten thousand bonds of debt He abundantly signs with pardons.
B Note: Deut. XXVII, 25: "Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person."
424. He thus commends works of mercy and almsgiving, so that he appears to be overzealous in his discourse, saying that God is induced to accept gifts. Morellius certainly thought that a corruption existed in the manuscript. But we have found no variant reading; hence we do not doubt that Pisides has spoken hyperbolically here, just as above, v. 420, when he called God a respecter of persons. He elegantly calls the poor the ministers of God, and as it were, his quæstors, who convey whatever anyone bestows upon them into the heavenly treasury, according to that word of Matthew VI, 20: "Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven." And he says that God accepts gifts, because the Lord Himself testified in Matthew XXV, 40: "Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me." Regarding which words Saint Cyprian elegantly exclaims in *De Opere et Eleemosyna*, p. 245: "What greater thing could Christ have declared to us? How could He have more provoked us to works of justice and mercy than by saying that whatever is bestowed upon the needy and the poor is bestowed upon Him, and that He Himself is offended if it is not bestowed upon the needy and the poor?" See Saint John Chrysostom, hom. 54, 3.
427. Whether the poet is perhaps too overzealous in showing how much almsgiving is valued before God; truly there is no error here, as some have thought. For when he says that God wills that His ministers, in holding account of the poor and in conducting cases, should act dishonestly, and by colluding with those who are guilty should admit their excuses, he is declaring the immensity of divine mercy toward those who are generous to the poor, and manifests the absolute and most free power of God in gratuitously dispensing His benefits: "For He hath mercy on whom He will; and whom He will, He hardeneth." Rom. IX, 18.
429. Saint Peter Chrysologus, who has written so clearly concerning mercy, fasting, and almsgiving, thus rightly explains those words of Matthew XXV, 35: "I was hungry, and you gave me to eat," in sermon 14: "The Lord did not say, 'The poor man was hungry, and you gave him to eat,' but He says: 'I was hungry, and you gave me to eat.' He esteems that which he received as given to Himself; He says that He eats what the poor man eats; He testifies that what the poor man drinks is poured into Himself." ... "There is nothing great before God, which even the poor man does not give. Here the more eager, the same is also the wealthier." Saint John Chrysostom, hom. 27, 3: "For the good Master is not accustomed to attend to those things which are done by us..." "We do these things as we are moved, and looking to Him, He either admits the things we do, or turns away." For the good Lord is not accustomed to attend to the things which are done by us, but to the inner mind, from which we are impelled to do these things, and looking to this, He either approves or is averse to the things which are done by us. And hom. 55, 4, in Gen.: "The magnitude of almsgiving is not judged by the quantity of money, but by the zeal of the givers." C
450. A bit of bread, or any trifling thing; he shows how easily God’s kindness and mercy can be won. Such also are the following; for he says that God is induced by a cup of cold water, by sighs, by tears, to forgive; D but that condition which he adds must certainly be noted: "if he might receive." That he "forces the laws" is an explanation and confirmation of the superior sentiment contained in verse 427. Matt. X, 42: "And whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward." Saint John Chrysostom on these words, hom. 27, 3: "Is it anything meaner than a cup of cold water? But the intent earned him the reward." Not indeed more vile than a cup of cold water? But the pious mind thereby conciliates the reward to itself. See Saint Augustine on Psalm CXXV, 11, 12, who ornaments this sentiment with many things: "A great will gave much."
451. "To the smallest trifle," he turns himself. Thus concerning the widow, who had brought two mites only, Jesus said. Mark XII, 43: "Amen I say to you, this poor widow hath cast in more than all into the treasury."
455. "To steal justice," said in the same sense as above, verse 427, to betray justice.
456. To show more fully concerning almsgiving, the syngraphae, or cautions, namely, sins, through which we make ourselves debtors to God, he affirms that God rescinds. Confer the parable of the steward of iniquity against the avarice of the Pharisees, whom the Lord praised because he had acted prudently in remitting the debt of the debtors. Luke XVI, 1.
457. Coloss. II, 14: "Blotting out the handwriting of the decree that was against us," etc.
458. That God wishes to forgive, He liberally condones. "He signs with pardons," he does not demand accounts by strict law; which is vulgarly called to be "syndicated."
A He cancels the decrees, though they be just, with quickness, and he writes briefly. He himself, by himself, as he wills, decides. He overturns laws, fearing no laws. He looses the bonds of all who are liable. He justifies thieves, he is reconciled to those condemned. He speaks with harlots, he remains with tax collectors. And if he were to learn to set before him a Psalm from David, he is accustomed to make even murderers innocent, and to grant release from every horrendous crime, and to make just men out of those who are themselves the violators of laws. For that judge does not use ink, but staining his own fingers with a red color, as is the custom of emperors, he subscribes. B You often stretch the bow, in order to strike, and you hold the already-loosed missile; for you are a slow archer in throwing the true javelin: nor does he once... C ...reconciled to those condemned. If one were to learn of the red letters of the imperial hand, "We are all written by the finger of God," and "the book shall be opened" to us on the day of revelation. The word leads the slow to repentance; he does not immediately threaten the wounds, and the stripes, and the deaths; but the brandishing of weapons, and a certain preparation as it were for defense... "He has bent his bow and made it ready, and in it he has prepared the vessels of death." It is not a string that stretches the bow of God, but a punishing power, sometimes being stretched, and sometimes being relaxed; thus the Word threatens the sinner, that the things which are to come to be sent for punishment are ready for him, if he persists in sin... D [NOTE: 453. St. Augustine, *De peccatorum meritis et remissione*, lib. I, 5, weighing that of the Prophet, Ps. cxli, 2: "In thy sight shall no man living be justified," observes: "The Lord, foreseeing that we would be such, deigned to give and make available certain salutary remedies against our guilt, and even after baptism the bonds of sin, namely works of mercy, when He says: 'Forgive, and you shall be forgiven; give, and it shall be given to you.' (Luke vi, 37)." ...to him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness. Whom does the promise made by the Lord Jesus to the thief escape? "Today you will be with me in paradise." (Luke xxiii, 43). Rom. v, 6: "Christ died for the ungodly." And 1 Pet. iii, 18: "Christ died for our sins, the just for the unjust," etc. "He speaks with harlots." Luke vii, 39: "And behold, a woman who was in the city a sinner, brought an alabaster jar of ointment... Her many sins are forgiven, for she loved much." "He remains with the tax collectors." Luke xix, 5: "Zacchaeus, who was the chief tax collector, come down quickly, for today I must stay at your house... and when they saw it, they all grumbled that he had turned aside to a sinful man." 446. The meaning of this verse, as it seems to me, is obscure, which Morellius in his version did not make clearer; for he, referring the word *pathos* to God, and translating *prokeithesthai* as "to sing," elicits a rather harsh meaning. Indeed, I would prefer to understand the pronoun as adjunct to the verb, and render *prokeithesthai* as "to set before," or "to exhibit": as if Pisida were to say, "If one were to understand the text of the Davidic Psalm just as it lies, and extract the true meaning from it." But what is the Psalm in which David signifies that which Pisida wishes? I certainly conjecture it to be the sixty-seventh [68th], which has fixed a cross for all interpreters, both ancient and recent, about which De Muis rightly pronounced in his Commentary on the same Psalm: "In this Psalm there are almost as many reefs, as many labyrinths, as there are verses, as there are words." And therefore Pisida intended, I believe, to indicate that all things contained in that Psalm are to be referred to the mercy of God and the grace of our Savior Jesus Christ. See the commentators, and especially St. Augustine on the verse of the same Psalm: "Who leads out those who are bound in strength; likewise those who provoke, who dwell in the tombs": for it is not permitted to linger here any longer. See also Ps. xv, 4: "Neither will I be mindful of their names by my lips." Moreover, that which Pisida attributes to the royal Psalmist in the three following verses, the holy Church even now approves and teaches; for she proposes that prayer to be read by individual priests, the beginning of which is: "God, who of the unworthy makest the worthy, and of sinners just [men], and of the unclean clean, cleanse my heart," etc. St. Prosper brilliantly pursues this argument in his poem *De ingratis*, which was recently brought to light by the most illustrious and most deserving man in ecclesiastical matters, Petrus Franciscus Fogginius: "So much is it a gift that we believe, and Grace given freely, / It does not enrich those called with the reward of merit: / Nor does it distinguish the deeds of just works, but alone / Makes all the clean from the unclean," etc. Ver. 421. 448. Codex 1126, *phthoron*... a casket in which ink, or rather red-matter, and the sacred encaustic were kept, with which the emperors of the East were accustomed to sign their golden Bulls. Famous are the words customary in the golden Bulls written in red letters by the hand of the emperor. See Nicetas on Manuel Comnenus, lib. I and II, 4. 441. The infinite price of Jesus Christ, by which that which had perished was redeemed, he poetically designates by alluding to the minium which the emperors used in writing. St. Gregory Nazianzen, orat. 9: "We are all written by the finger of God, and the book shall be opened to us on the day of revelation." 453. Codex 1126, *eggraphe*. He describes the patience of God toward sinners, so that they may repent and turn to Him, through an allegory taken from an archer, according to that Psalm vi, 13 [Ps. vii, 12]: "Unless you are converted, he has bent his bow, and prepared it." St. Basil, hom. on the same Psalm: "The threatening word leading the slow to repentance... etc." That statement is threatening, leading the slow to repentance. He does not immediately threaten wounds, stripes, deaths; but the brandishing of weapons, just as a certain apparatus for vengeance... the bow.]
A For you prepare the tension of the shaft, yet as an archer you become sluggish in shooting. And often, having stretched the bow, you again slacken the string and withdraw the tension, and by pretense you fashion fear and paint the image of a threat, until the onlooker, frightened by the blow, bows his back and, stooping, falls to his knees. And by fear, having contracted his whole body, he escapes the wound of the moving shaft. For if he seems to look against the shots, he becomes easily wounded by the archer. But if he moves away from the place of evil (for sin is the place of the battle), he turns the blow to the opposite side. For this archer wishes to miss; he pretends to be angry, but he strikes only once, while he warns many times—with fears, threats, shame, dreams, punishing with affection; for it must be that in nature the threat of God is also salvation, B who constructs various ways to save, and becomes a merchant of soul-gain, and for those who wish to receive, a merchant of heaven; and He is pleased to set forth pearls, which Indian tides have not washed to shore, but the impoverished circumstances of life. Poor men, possessing hidden substance,
NOTE
. For it is His custom always, since He cares for our salvation, to foretell the punishments that He is about to inflict, for this reason only, that He might not have to inflict them. For if He wished to inflict them, He would not have said so; but He deliberately foretells them so that we, having learned and having been corrected by fear, might turn aside His indignation and render His decrees void; for nothing so gladdens Him as our conversion and our return from vice to virtue. C For the grace of Christ, by whom as mediator we are reconciled and the impious is justified, has stretched out His bow and prepared in it the vessels of death. It is no mere nerve that shall stretch the bow of God, but the power of punishing, which is sometimes intense and sometimes effectively slackened. Therefore, Scripture threatens the sinner with the future punishments prepared for him, if he remains in sin, etc. See our George’s acroasis on the expedition against the Persians, v. 90. D St. John Chrysostom, hom. 25, 5, in Gen.: “For it is His custom always, since He cares for our salvation, to foretell the punishments which He is about to inflict, for this cause only, that He might not inflict them; for if He wished to inflict them, He would not have said so. But He deliberately foretells this, so that we, having learned and having been corrected by fear, might alter His indignation and render His decisions void; for there is nothing that so gladdens Him as our conversion and our return from vice to virtue.” [Note: 1126 has ἑτοιμότρωτον, ready to be wounded, vulnerable.] [Note: Μεταίχμιον is a redundancy; for μεταίχμιον, that is, between, and the spear-point, signify the same thing, namely, the interval or space placed between two fighting armies. Since sin is that which separates man from God. St. Augustine, De peccat. merit. et remiss., lib. 1, 25: “For only sins separate between men and God, which are loosed by Christ’s grace...”] 475. St. Gregory Nazianzen, orat. 42, observing Adam recalled from punishment to repentance, concludes: “Thus was punishment itself turned into mercy: for thus I judge God to inflict punishments.” 477. Ψυχοκερδής, merchant of souls, and ψυχή, gain; πλουτοπράτης, seller of wealth, and πράτης, seller. Thus in the following verse, heaven’s merchant, from heaven, and seller. These are words ingeniously coined by Pisida. 479. Hitherto Pisida has demonstrated how much alms and repentance can avail to appease divine justice: now he shows what afflictions and calamities can achieve to obtain the mercy of God. Poverty, tribulations, martyrdoms, and whatever adversities befall Christian men, he calls gems and true riches, which God sets before us, that we might be able to possess the heavenly kingdom. The Scriptures are full, the books of the Holy Fathers are full of the most eloquent testimonies on this matter: “For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.” Hebr. xii, 6. The verses marked with an asterisk were supplied from cod. 1126. 481. Pearls in a mystical sense are the mysteries of religion. Yet Pisida seems to have understood by pearls the tribulations by which God corrects and proves us, according to that of Solomon, Prov. xxv, 12: “An earring of gold, and a pearl that shines, is he that reproves the wise and the obedient ear.” Therefore, the pearls set before us by God are the calamities, to which seem to be subjected poor, the fatherless and orphans, the aged, the infirm, the guests, the priests and the martyrs, concerning all of whom there is more among the Fathers. De margaritis, sma.A nor those who, clothed in purple and the byssine robe, bring others to the dignity of angels. And there He shows you gleaming and eloquent carbuncles (for they truly speak when they are ignited), distinguished with spots, red, and burning just like fire, emitting light from their wounds; stones, to be sure, of small value, as it seems, and yet priceless, all destined for the adorning of crowns, and which, from melted and scorched limbs, shine in the sight of the kingdom of the ever-living thrones more than fire from coals: because they did not fear to have their mortal bodies excised and amputated, and did not blanch at the audacity of a tyrant. B O wise scourge! O abyss of riches! O inexhaustible goodness, which by the mere fear of things of this kind purifies strong men, sending into them—before the very time of judgment—a disease as a cleansing fire; but rouses us, striking us with calamity as a teacher, and procures for us a reward from infirmity; and thus it brings it about that what seems to be a punishment of life becomes an occasion of common salvation! You have turned the water around as a support for the earth; for the earth, however heavy it may be, You have founded above this unstable base, or rather You have poured the air around it as a foundation. Indeed, I know not what other base You have established for it, or what other foundation.
NOTES
C some *tent-despoilers* [decimators], names terrible even to hear; monthly extorters, like those demons who cause epilepsy, attacking the poor according to the periods of the moon.
Compare: carbuncles, etc., see below, verse 1655. 487. There is no doubt that Pisides refers to that text, 31:22: *Fine linen and purple are her clothing*, which is said concerning the strong woman. But the poet here clearly designates priests, not matrons. For of old the Levites proceeded along, clothed in purple and fine linen before the ark. But the true office of priests is that, engaged in sacred duties, they may approach as closely as possible to the dignity of angels, and lead other Christians to that same level of sublimity. See St. John Chrysostom, *On the Priesthood*, book III, at the beginning. Add that, when he says *stola indutos* [clothed in robes], he plainly designates the priestly stole. See Vincent Riccardi’s *Notes on the Orations of St. Proclus*, p. 236. But Jos. Bingham, *Antiquities of the Church*, book XI, ch. 14, proves at length that angels were termed bishops in antiquity, which I shall not gainsay. Pisides used *angelic* as a substantive instead of an adjective, as he does elsewhere. See, if the matter is of such importance, how varied are the mystical meanings of fine linen and purple among the commentators of Sacred Scripture. D 489. He compares [them] and calls them *eloquent carbuncles*, to demonstrate their unconquered constancy in the faith of Christ. He plays on the word *anthrax*, which means coal, the carbuncle gem, and the carbuncle disease. Regarding this gem, one should consult Theophrastus, *On Stones*. Pliny, book XXXVII, ch. 7, assigns it the first place among gems: *Carbuncles hold the first rank, so called from the similarity of fires, although they themselves are not affected by fires, and for that reason are called by some apyroti [uninflammable].* In the margin of the Morellian edition, and in *Cod. Vat. 1129*, it is read here, *Concerning the sacred disease*, or *comitial*. The editors of the *Bibliotheca Patrum*, noticing this, noted thus from Pisides in the margin: *I do not understand the Greek inscription concerning the sacred disease; I would prefer it to be concerning the contests and the rewards of the martyrs.* If I may be permitted to guess, I would think that one, or two verses here have fallen out, in which he described another kind of men oppressed by straits, namely those in debt, from whom money-lenders demanded interest on a monthly basis; so that for a hundred denarii one was paid every single month, and twelve denarii were paid to them throughout the whole year: which kind of interest the ancients called *centesima*. A passage of Basil in *Homil. on Psalm xiv* has raised suspicion: *Exatostologoi* [cent-mongers], i.e., *there are some cent-mongers and decimators*, names terrible even to hear. Those monthly re-collectors, just like those demons who are the authors of the comitial disease, attack the poor at the periods of the moon.
493. See above, v. 1126, *stones, pores*, and in the following verse *ready-minded*. 499. Idem cod. *Audacity*. Does he not recall Horace saying, book III, ode 3: *The man just and tenacious of purpose / neither the ardor of citizens ordering what is base, / nor the countenance of the threatening tyrant / moves, with a solid mind, etc.*? Rightly, St. Augustine, *De civit. Dei*, book X: *Men*, he says, *namely the martyrs, we would have called our heroes more eloquently, if ecclesiastical custom permitted it.* 500. He seems to conclude the digression concerning divine mercy with the testimony of James 1:12: *Blessed is the man who endures temptation, because when he has been proved, he will receive the crown of life which God has promised to those who love Him.* See St. Basil, *Homily on Famine and Drought* V, and *on Psalm xxxiii*. 506. See above, v. 475. He says that the foundation of the earth is either water or air: or that it itself hangs everywhere as if by a chain. Sticking perhaps too much, as was the custom, to the letters of Holy Scripture, that [verse] of Psalm 24...
"For he hath founded it upon the seas," etc. And Psalm 136:6: "Who established the earth upon the waters." Thus Eustathius of Antioch in the beginning of his *Hexaemeron*, and Saint John Chrysostom in his 12th Homily on Genesis, interpret the text. Saint Basil, however, in his *Homily on the Hexaemeron*, says: what else does this signify, but that the nature of water is poured around the earth on all sides? To which Pisides agrees A when he says:
And setting the heavy earth upon an unstable base, And providing air as a foundation for it, I know not what other foundation it establishes, Or what depth He creates for it, So that it may not need a depth beneath it. But rather with chains unknown to everyone, Making the swarming ship to hang; For the earth is a ship, perhaps, in water, B Standing fast, and carrying the inhabited world. And gathering sand as a wall for the sea, And weaving a fine partition against the surge; And creating thunder, and having foretold the lightning, To run out from the humid fire-spitters; He who has treasured up the windy substances From hidden channels, as you know, And again pours them out in Exodus, When He grants breaths to His servants. He who turns around the path of the thunderbolt, C And turns the upward course downward, And pours the abyss from the depth upward, When He casts them forth with necessary fears, And by fear works the excision of sin. He who mingles the burning fire with hail, When He brings strange calamities upon the Egyptians— And neither evaporates the dew with torches, Nor yet makes the flame ashes with the hail; But as an umpire, and joining the struggle, D And sending wind, and mediating the battle.
What does it signify, save that the nature of water is poured round the earth on every side? It is a thing of equal weight; for a thing of like nature placed in the middle will have no more or less [inclination] anywhere, nor can it lean over; but since it holds itself in like manner, it remains unmoved. This [earth], heavy as it is, and carrying such a world upon its own shoulders, He founded upon the waters. Is sand a boundary for such an element? By the sand, the weakest of all things, that which is unbearable in its violence is bridled. Abysses from the depths.
A O you who draw up the battlements of the clouds and suspend the rains in the heights and lower them into the depths; and who, if you will, draw up water from the earth to be raised aloft, and again irrigate the thirsty earth, and by the infusion of moisture
immediately temper the dryness,
lest, consumed by scorched heat, it should eventually become barren of seeds.O you who produce the flowing out of rains as you command, making them akin to hard stones, which neither winter nor the burning of heat prevents from being fashioned according to your decreed command. For in one place winter has hardened them like rocky ice, and in another, even summer has left behind the hard stones of hail. Who has accurately reckoned the causes of the arcane logic of this stone-working?
A What mouth, emboldened by the Stagirite, 555 utters discourses on hail, claiming that the sun, having snatched up the thick moisture and having instilled coldness into the hollow cavities of the clouds, and having wrapped the whole of 560 the moisture in the depth of the cold, turns the porous to stone and thickens the nature? And thence the hail, having become marble, becomes a dissolution of stone-running rollers. 563 But winter, by the extension of cold, having instilled numbness into the formation of the flow, 565 does not allow it to pour out while it is being made porous, but constricting and drawing it, it shows the easily-foiled waves of syllogisms to be frozen 567 and a porous creation of children’s toys, 569 gathering thin chaff onto a roof! 570 O bubble, pulsating and inflated, and puffed up with swollen discourses! O fragile and fluid creation, like a foundationless and dispersing structure, scattered...
B What mouth, bold in the fashion of the Stagirite, vomits forth discourses on hail? For he says that the sun, having attracted humid molecules and having cast cold into the hollow recesses of clouds, compresses the vapor enclosed within with such great frigidity that what is fluid by nature turns to stone and becomes hard; and then the marble hail, having been made, is poured out through the air in stone cylinders. And afterwards, by the intensity of its own cold, winter inflicts a certain numbness upon the frozen hail while it is slipping down, and does not allow it to flow away and be dissolved; nay, it constricts it so tightly and drags it hither and thither that it appears compact. O the wandering waves of syllogisms and the feeble building of playing children, who collect light chaff to build houses! O light bubble, and puffed up by wind, swollen discourses!
[NOTE: The remaining text is commentary on the preceding passage, dealing with Aristotelian meteorology, references to Livy and Pliny, scriptural citations (Ezekiel 38:22), and a critique of sophistical emptiness, comparing false arguments to the bubbles created by raindrops, using a parallel from Gregory of Nyssa.]
A And breathing forth windy discourses, it was like an unfathomable and flowing creation; a spray constitutes it, and a drop overturns it. For if cold makes the frost congeal, and heat makes the summer heat do this: whence did they come together into one joint operation, two workmen having opposing natures? And what are the furnaces, and the rollers, and the turnings, that rounded the cold into a rolling stone? And whence did the flame, mingled with the rain, and winding about in hostile twistings, not suffer destruction by the mutual slaughter? If yet again, whether turning the quickly-moving mind, or the subtle spirit for the unfolding of speech, it learns to speak something trustworthy of the hidden things, even this is of Thy providence, O Master; B So that one, having looked not only at the length or the beauty of the breadth of the creatures, might be struck with wonder, but rather, having been raised up in thoughts to the height of the depth, might knowingly admire Thee. But say then to the Stagirite, O Plato, and persuade the disciple, if thou canst persuade, by saying: Descend from the heavens, and speak of earthly things. Lest, having been lifted up with empty-headed arrogance, like the fledgling of an eagle, even if unwilling, thou mightest fall back down, not bearing the sun. But O Thou who art manifestly hidden amongst us, and dwelling in light, yet to those who seek Thy essence sending back much darkness, As covering not only Thy nature, but in restraint showing also the creation; So that if one should wish to investigate with reason Thy unsearchable essence, he might first take as a veil the gloomy creation, and through the rolling of the wheels—or rather, by reason— might understand that the things above us are nothing to us, for a mortal must think mortal thoughts, not immortal ones, God being unknown, not because of a diversity of syllogisms unknown to us, but according to a certain unified knowledge towards things concerning us, and a sort of incomprehensible ignorance.
A Willing that your essence be unsearched, First may the sullen creation serve as a veil, And having been astonished by the mist, let one turn back. Having that ineffable pre-eminence, And revealing yourself as in a mirror in creation, So that each one, hastening to learn Your manifestations through it, as far as is possible, May not immediately seek reasons beyond the mind; But as a youth delivered to a teacher, And running to these mundane letters, For the time being may be formed by the lower lessons, Persevering in the school of created things; And may he wisely learn the syllables, that is, the substances, Which have been combined into themselves; And the arrangements of the sun and moon, As the clearly marked signs of the times. B But when he has learned the whole preliminary discipline, And has been polished by the general accents, And fixes his mind upon the parts of speech, And speaking as an orator, may he describe the created things, And may he encounter all the cosmic laws, And not transgressing the ancient boundaries.
When we are taught the letters, we first receive their names; C then their forms and powers; then in this way their syllables and the conditions within these, and after this, already the words and their accidents—I mean extensions, and contractions, and accents, and things similar to these.
D Ex solis et lunae motu, quotquot fuerunt ab origine mundi nationes et populi, temporum mensuram et anni descriptionem traxerunt. Per eamdem allegoriam ex Grammatica desumptam videtur scite denotare punctuationes, quae στίγματα a Graecis dicuntur: ita ut variae solis progressiones, et lunae positiones, habito ad mundi ordinem respectu, non aliter considerandae veniant, quam in orationis circumductione et ambitu punctuationes, quibus periodi et membra distinguuntur. Vide sanctum Basilium *Contra Eunom.* lib. 1, 21. At Pisida solem et lunam μέτα, temporum distinctas notas et aperta signa appellans, tacitus vanam Genethliacorum artem, et Astrologorum ridiculam scientiam carpit, qui illud *Genes.* 1, 14, *Fiant luminaria... et sint in signa*, οὐχὶ non de aeris affectionibus, neque de temporum immutatione, sed de vitae sorte suo arbitratu accipiunt; ut ait sanctus Basilius *homil.* 6, 5, in *Hexaem.*, qui talium hominum somnia sapienter refutat.
Hexaemeron or Cosmopoia
625 And having done much, and having leaned forward, let one enter Into the initiations of the higher contemplation; And may he receive the syntax of that place into his mind, The instructress of the greatest things. 630 Then, advancing, let him learn more perfectly, As he who has known nothing but a hidden shadow. A And so now, if from ignorance He takes the "Know thyself" for consideration, And, dwelling upon the nature of our own selves, 635 May he for a time converse with himself and learn Whence he was produced, he who was nothing before life, And how the small problems of the seed In the divisions of so many organs
[The Latin commentary continues:] ...and recognizes it more perfectly; and thus at length, aroused from this very ignorance of things, let him take that "Know thyself" to be considered by himself, and let him linger long in examining our nature, until he learns, communing with himself, that he has known nothing except a hidden shadow. Let him discourse, and let him strive to attain all the laws of the world, provided that, deviating in no smallest degree from ancient boundaries, he does not occupy himself with new regulations: but when he has accomplished much, and has profited much in these things, then let him commit himself to the instructions of divine contemplation, and conceive in his mind the syntax, that is, the order and the composition, of that heavenly place where the disciplines of the greatest things are taught. Then, finally, the more he has progressed, the more he realizes that he has comprehended nothing in his mind but most obscure shadows. B Indeed, the parts of the seed, divided into so many organs, here produce the seats of the eyes, there they bring forth veins: where they join the ligaments of the intestines, where they produce the hands, [and so forth].
NOTES
[Regarding] C ...does not rely. Pisida signifies that for a Christian man, all doctrine must be drawn from the Old and New Testament, when he says that "ancient boundaries" are not to be overstepped, and that "new regulations" [νέας διατάξεις] are to be diligently observed; he used "new regulations" for the New Testament. He proposes, however, that these books alone are to be read, that these must be reconciled among themselves, and he demonstrates that these are to be held as if by memory: and he declares that there is no other reason by which anyone can progress to a higher contemplation of studies; for as the holy Apostle Paul says, 2 Tim. 3[:16]: "All Scripture, inspired by God, is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." He determines, therefore, that "letters" [γράμματα], human literature, are to be studied with the mind only so far that one may be able to read and understand the divine writings, by whose help and guidance he may institute for himself [the paths] to the cognition of heavenly things, namely, to the mystical knowledge of God, which is clearly that which pseudo-Dionysius treats at length in his books *On the Celestial Hierarchy*.
628. *Syntax in grammatical matters* is the correct composition of the parts of speech among themselves, and the conjunction and perfection of all precepts: therefore, rightly concluding his allegory, which is knowledge concerning divine things, he calls it syntax, because it comprehends and completes all those things which are most worthy of being known: he names it "instructress" [παιδεύτριαν], because it is the true discipline of Christians.
632. *Who has known ignorance ever?* Therefore, he calls man back rather to the knowledge of himself, proposing for consideration that vulgar saying inscribed in the Delphic temple, "Know thyself," which Socrates in the *Alcibiades*, dial. 4, praised as the singular principle and foundation of true philosophy, and explained at length; [but] more pressingly in the *Dialogus de Philosophia*, where you may read these things: "To be ignorant of oneself, is it to be prudent or not prudent? Not prudent. Therefore to know oneself is to be prudent? I say, he said; this therefore, as it seems, is what the Delphic inscription enjoins, to practice prudence and justice." D ...it seems. Is it of a prudent or imprudent man to be ignorant of himself? Of an imprudent one. Is it therefore of a prudent man to know himself? It is, he said. Does this writing of Delphi then, as it seems, enjoin this, that we should practice prudence and justice? It seems so. Whoever wishes to know how much those things which Pisida here imparts agree with Platonic doctrine, let him read the recently praised dialogue 4 of the *Alcibiades*, and Cicero, *De finibus* V, who most clearly explains why the Pythian Apollo commanded us to know ourselves, because this is the only true knowledge of man.
636. He begins to explain the creation of the day six, namely the creation of man, which who is not to be admired? Confer, if you wish, the interpreters of Holy Scripture, confer both the ancient and recent philosophers, who all treat this subject most abundantly. Nevertheless, among others, Lactantius and Saint Gregory of Nyssa are to be consulted here, who left us peculiar treatises *On the Making of Man*. I will hardly recall to your memory the unknown author who composed two homilies *On the Structure of Man*; for those are frigid and treat such a great matter jejunely, wherefore P. Julianus Le Garnier in his *Preface to the Works of Saint Basil* rightly judged that they are not to be attributed to Saint Basil nor to Saint Gregory Nazianzen. But as concerns us, we will annotate a few things on the following verses: for it would be infinite to relate the things which have been said by six hundred most illustrious men concerning the creation of man. For whose patience would be such that he could either wish or be able to read those things which could be gathered from Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Lucretius, and Cicero, not to mention others? And therefore we will attempt to explain only the more obscure parts. Yet we will advise you that, the first part of the work having been completed, Pisida is hurrying to the second. Since in the beginning we said that he considered the whole work of creation, which was completed in the space of six days by God, as divided into two parts. And so, while he has argued in his own manner thus far concerning heaven and those things which are seen to be made in heaven, now we proceed to the earth, and let us speak of those things which are born within it, correctly starting from man, than whom nothing is more excellent, although man was created last of all animals. Thus Plato in the *Timaeus*, whom Pisida follows, as we observed in the end of the *Monition* [or Warning], discourses first about the world in general, and then devotes himself entirely to contemplating the nature and formation of man. And here I suggest to you that you read the homily of Saint Basil...
… A
placed in between—the positions of the eyes, And where they produce veins, and where they knit together The connections of the intestines, and again they make grow Hands, and they sow a foundation for the feet; And how, being divided into manifold portions, The system of the seed in a various way Establishes the one substance of the members; Whence does it introduce sources of blood, And implant a tension of nerves in the body, And build ribs, and adorn the hair, And tighten the heels, and divide the fingers; And it makes the tongue loose for twisting words, And to be a plectrum for the speaking instrument— And it holds fast the neck with vertebrae, Lest it suffer a slipping in its rotation? A And it roots the dense molars of the teeth, So that the grains may be ground for food; And how does it plant the fiery heart, When no spark was born within, Which it placed in the midst; just as those who build A keel, throw timbers on opposite sides, From here and there, to save the ship? Whence does it shape and impress the image, And put beauty into it from shapelessness? And passing through what maternal wombs, Here it shapes the female by its moulding; Here it puts forth the bodily forms of males; Whence does it bubble up sources for the embryos, And introduces the ducts of milk; And how likewise is the heat for plants,
NOTES
658. And this position also occupies its primary place; for it is situated in the middle... in the more precious [parts] nature has established the most precious [thing], unless something greater prevents it. Its (the heart’s) position obtains the principal seat; for it is placed in the middle... for nature is accustomed to constitute a more noble thing in more noble places, unless something greater prevents it. Aristot., *De part. anim.*, lib. iii, cap. 4. You will find what follows regarding the comparison of the heart with the keel of a ship explained in the *Timaeus*, pag. 70. For you will perceive that it is the same in the keel, as in the various parts of the body which nature has fortified with a heart. Saint Gregory of Nyssa explains the matter even more clearly, *De opif. hom.*, cap. 30, for with individual parts enumerated, he concludes thus: "So that in this way it might be safe on all sides against all things that could cause it distress or harm."
667. Causes by which children resemble their parents, related by Aristotle, lib. iv, cap. 3, *De anim. generat.*; Plutarch, *De plac. philos.*, lib. v, cap. 11 and 12; Lucretius, lib. iv. From the more recent [authors], however, very many have recalled the matter itself for examination, of whom I will name one or two for the sake of honor, the great glory of Italy, Vallisneri, and the ornament of France, Maupertuis, who recently treated the whole subject of the generation of man most ingeniously and elegantly in a book inscribed *Venus physique*.
668. A comparison, by which the four ages of human life are described like those of plants through the four seasons of the year, germinating, bearing fruit, and finally drying up: But what is to be wondered at is that those things which happen to plants, you will find to happen similarly to the youth and old age of men. Saint Basil, hom. 5, n. 7, in *Hexaem.* More elegantly Cicero, *De finib.*, v: "Of these..."
A It increases the body of immature organs, And works the growth of the limbs; It casts flowers upon the youths as hair, And makes the countenance beautiful with verdure, And the heat is eager to bring forth fruits; Until the time of decline arrives, Which presses out the harvest of the young? For the heat withers immediately, And the ear of the old men whitens; It grows heavy and seems bowed, It has inclined to the earth, and weighs downward; For it looks to the harvest drawing near. If one could take up the rhythmic lyre of our flesh, And know the sequence of the limbs, and the tones, And escaping the soundless silence, Could be able to relate the melody below. And how the fluid of the seed is thickened, And makes flesh, and again hardens, And weaves sinews and bony cohesion; Or how great a vessel memory carries, In which it keeps the receptions of things. Let him say how nature runs effectively Toward the nutritive functions in us, As if some mistress of the housekeeping Should rouse her own workers to their tasks, And sharpens the appetitive pores, And directs all the attracting tones; And casts locks upon the gates of the drawers, Until, having taken the season of change, The heat will bloodify the nutrients, And will push the gate that separates, And will carry out every superfluous burden. Or how it introduces effective perceptions Toward the various distinctions in us, Touch, hearing, taste, smell, sight; And with its tactile powers for the judging finger... B
NOTES
even of things which the earth produces, there is a kind of education and perfection, not unlike that of living creatures. Thus we say that the vine lives and dies: the tree, and the shoot, and the old plant, and that it flourishes and grows old, etc. 670. Cod. 1126, in reverse order, *and works the growths of the limbs*. 672. Morellius preferred *verdure*, which he rendered as *grass*, but wished this verse later to be read thus: *With down, and makes the countenance most beautiful*: which I do not approve. For the whole grace of the allegory perishes. Did not Virgil, *Aen.* lib. v, 195, call Euryalus *distinguished in form, and in green youth*? Was not the girl who flourished in the very green flower of youth called Chloe by the Greeks? I will recall to mind the Thressan Chloe of Horace. 681. He calls the *fleshly lyre* that harmony of the limbs and wonderful proportion of the parts, which the Greeks call *Harmonia*, as it is in Lucretius, lib. iv, 101, who following the opinion of Epicurus contends that the soul is not that which preserves the harmony itself, but rather a certain part of the body. Aristoxenus chose to assert the same, regarding whom Cicero, *Tuscul. quaest.*, aptly says: "Proxime autem Aristoxenus musicus, idemque philosophus, tensionem ipsius corporis quamdam, veluti in cantu et fidibus, quae harmonia dicitur, sic ex corporis totius natura et figura varios cieri motus, tanquam in cantu sonos." He did not depart from his own craft, and yet he said something which, whatever its nature, was much better said and explained by Plato. This is in the *Phaedo*, where he persuaded Simmias that it is absurd to say the soul consists of a certain harmony of those things which are tense through the body. Which Aristotle also proves, lib. i *De anima*, c. 4. 688. See Aristotle, *De memoria et reminiscentia*, cap. 1, and Cicer., *Tuscul. quaest.* i, where he explains the power of memory according to Plato. 695. Plato in *Timaeus*, pag. 71, called the inmost parts of the stomach gates. 701. Cod. 1126, *effective*. How perceptions are had, see Plato's *Timaeus*, pag. 45, and *De anima mundi*, pag. 100, and *Theaetetus*, where more is taught regarding knowledge, which Pisida has interspersed here and there in his poem. See also Aristotle, *De anima*, lib. ii, cap. 5, and *De sensu et sensili*, cap. 6; Plutarch, *De placitis philos.*, lib. iv, cap. 8, and Cicero, *Quaest. Acad.*, lib. iv, who discourse upon all these things which Pisida lightly touches, with a certain force of language and elegance according to their own judgment.
Zygostatei to chainon ek tounantion — the open space, and with the judgment of a finger, discerns the soft from its opposite? To the sense of hearing it provides a narrow transition, and fashions a door like a snail shell, so that the sonorous vibrations may righteously and in order be admitted into the ears, and the inner passages not be shattered if voices and confused sounds were to burst into them tumultuously. It also makes the tongue loose and soft, covered with fleshy papillae: for it is necessary that it be covered with a spongy membrane, so that, being pressed while chewing food, it may turn and relax it, until it fills and refreshes the prepared passages, through which the loosened [tongue], having received nourishment, tastes and discerns whatever it swallows.
And whence has it acquired those spacious pipes, the vehicle of the sense of smell and the conveyors of life-sustaining breath? If these are obstructed by some ailment, the animal suffers miserably, as if throttled by a noose, and is forced to use its mouth to breathe.
B Mimicking the positions in the heavens, He has set up two eyes as luminaries, so that we might have—by the rays of our eyes striking the air like archers—to draw light to light, as fire from coals. For, having pierced through, like pipes, the nerves from the upper roof of the skull, and having cast the spirit of light into the passage, He covers the pupils with tunics A, as if some one were guarding virgins at home, and opens a small aperture in the passage, so that the spirit of light, running through the channels, may neither be constricted, the path being blocked, and become inflated and darken the vision, and cause effusions to spread over the eyes; nor, on the other hand, rush forth into the breadth with insatiable force, and disturb and cloud the pupils.
How thy knowledge, O God, of thy wisely created works has been magnified, that knowledge—hard to comprehend—which, by unspoken words, declares the divine darkness! And now it is granted to the darkened heart to have the movement of the eyes as a torchbearer, if indeed, by casting into them the stains... B
NOTES
712. Idem cod., *skin-like*. 727. Idem cod., *roofs*. Everything which pertains to the eyes and the faculty of sight, Pisides has expressed according to Plato, Tim., p. 45. Saint Gregory of Nyssa treats the same things elegantly and in the same sense, homily on the words: "Let us make man," p. 165. The Vatican codex has [notes on the optic nerves]. Pisides designates the optic nerves, which from the summit of the brain, descending through certain circuits, are carried into the orbits of the eyes. They were so prepared by nature as to bring the spirit, or visual rays, to the pupils; the ancients believed this, and therefore thought them to be perforated like canals. Galen expressed this more clearly, vol. IV, 58, from whom Oribasius compiled his book on anatomy: "Nature, however, first joins and bends within the cranium the sensible nerves descending from the brain to the eyes, and unites their small passages, making a shape similar to the letter X, and afterwards again produced each one toward the product of upper rectitude to the eye, so that the spirit which travels from the brain to each eye, if at any time one of them were closed, or altogether maimed, might plainly pass into the other," etc. For the rest, regarding the diseases of the eyes which the poet lightly touches upon, see the physicians and anatomists.
741. "Declaring the divine darkness." The created things, the explanation of which we are unequal to, show how incomprehensible is the knowledge of God. Pisides always returns to this, to prove what the weakness of our mind is. See above v. [4] and 600.
Again, let it pour forth tears through these same eyes, Cleansing its entrances with the flow of them. If that Weigher of hidden essences Should declare the labyrinths of the arguments, And how the mind remains with the clay-heavy burden, And the spirit endures, joined to the mud; And how it possesses the wretched one in matter, If no material thing circumscribes it. Or how the great eye of the soul was made, And possesses the viewing channels for hidden things, And now, indeed, remains upon the earth in its activities, Now leaps toward the aether itself; And, raised up like a bird, and having reached the sun, A It seeks the natures of things above and below. And with some it is satisfied, others it views proportionately, But the images of others it understands by conjectures. And nowhere wishing to steady its appetite, It is drawn toward the Cause of all things, And desires to gaze upon the knowledge of Him. And it labors much, and seems to pass beyond The furthest pole; but there it merely droops, Even if it should provide a clear heart. When, however, it has liberated these many-twisted knots By resting, and goes deep, and declares How the secret way-stayer of the mind, The thief of souls, the destroyer of the heart, B
NOTES
745. Looking upon the works of God, and how great is the majesty and providence of the Creator, considering them, we are excited to repentance: hence the eyes are torches illuminating the hearts. St. Basil, hom. 21, 7, thus expressed the power of tears to wash away sins: "For whoredom, and whatever things like these are, cast out they perish, and arrive at the point that they are not even anymore, if they are blotted out by tears."
752. How difficult this investigation of the union of soul and body is, so many and so varied opinions of philosophers declare, and for the most part systems. See Plato in *Timaeus*, 99, and in *Phaedo* passim; Aristotle, *De anima*; Plutarch, lib. 1, 3; Lucretius, lib. 4; Cicero, *Tusculan Disputations*, lib. 1; Saint Gregory of Nyssa, *De opificio hominis*, chap. 12; Lactantius, on the same argument, chap. 17 and following; and Saint Augustine, book *De quantitate animae*.
753. Cod. 1126, "apportions activities." What the soul's energy is, which Pisides designates, Socrates explains in the *Theaetetus*, page 187. For there he places knowledge not in sense, but in that name, whatever it may be that the soul possesses, when it is engaged in consideration by itself. Thus Pisides indicates the operation and judgment of the soul after the ideas are perceived by means of the senses. But the power and speed of the mind, *ibid.*, page 175, Socrates describes as follows: "The mind is carried everywhere, according to Pindar, measuring both what is beneath the earth and what is above, and navigating above the heavens, and investigating every nature everywhere, to see where each of the things that exist is, not lowering itself to anything near." C
757. ...uses Pindar, and "what measures under the earth, and what explains by astronomical reasons what is above the heavens, and investigates the nature of things everywhere, which is contained in the circuit of the universe, yet does not truly subject itself to immediate things in any way." Cod. Vat. 1126 has "casts all its force into earthly things"; which reading I approve.
760. Cod. Vat. 1126 is better: "with conjectures," or "if it pleases, with conjectures."
762. The same codex correctly: "it craves, it desires."
767. When he has granted that man, composed of flesh and spirit, is to be considered, he enumerates the diseases which are excited in him from the flesh, and from the spirit, and against it. Those evils which arise from concupiscence or from the senses he refers to the flesh, or body; but those which are conceived from a false comprehension of things and from a depraved judgment of the mind, he designates as born from the corruption of the spirit. He correctly makes the devil the author of both. The foundation of this distinction between sins proceeding to our ruin either from the flesh or from the spirit—which we call vices of the soul—is the Platonic doctrine concerning the soul, immortal and mortal, placed in different parts of the body, which see in the *Timaeus*, page 69 and following, and *De anima mundi*, page 102, where D Plato, discussing the diseases of the body and soul, defined their origin and communion thus: "But the principles of vices are pleasures and pains, and desires and fears, indeed kindled from the body, but mixed into the soul, and spoken of by various names."
769. *Phrenes*: Plato, in the cited passages, calls them...
A the "membrane," which he says is interposed between the immortal and mortal soul, or the rational and irrational, so that the superior part might not be overcome and yield to the inferior, but rather that this part, being separated and excluded by that reason, might be readier to obey reason. Hence Pisidas calls the devil the "obstruent of the *phrenes*."
B The first dragon from without introduces pleasures within, sowing thoughts for the production of sin; or how he plays the tyrant, and transfers nature against nature into the beastliness of the passions. He shows the fickle *phrenes* to be birds, the lustful to be swine, the rapacious to be wolves, the contentious to be wasps, and the irascible to be leopards; he makes the deceitful to be wretched dogs, appearing to fawn while hastening to bite. The spiteful he completes as bitter serpents, putting his venom into their evil transformation; he also sharpens the bitter shafts of pride, C for he harms it with a soul-inflaming poison of base honor, of puffed-up downfall, of lowly pride, of inglorious disrepute, in a mourning that laughs at the shadow of the play. And to the covetous he exposes idolatry as the root of all evils; for even if it be satisfied, it has no satiety, but dissolves into desires and inflammations, thirsting in its fullness, and by its addition kindling the ferment of golden drunkenness. Or how does he who once fell from heaven hold such power, that he causes not only the body, like a barbarian tyrant, to wage war against the spirit, but takes possession of the heart itself, and D subjects the flesh to himself—and Pisidas, along with Saint Paul, has described what the works of the flesh are—now he shows how the devil himself attacks the spirit and impels it to whatever is to be conceived by the mind.
775. *For when concupiscence has conceived, it brings forth sin: and sin, when it is perfected, brings forth death* (James 1:15). See Saint Basil, Homily on Psalm 11: "Behold, it has travailed with injustice, it has conceived pain, and brought forth iniquity" (Psalm 7:15). "Man, when he was in honor, did not understand: he was compared to senseless beasts, and became like to them" (Psalm 48:21). See Saint Basil and the other Holy Fathers on this passage, who hold common views with Pisidas. And Saint John Chrysostom thus to the point: "But these who know nothing of future things are worse than the brutes; and not these only, but even those who live in a corrupted and lost life, as they become serpents, scorpions, and wolves through wickedness; and oxen through stupidity, and dogs through impudence."
[[alt-version omitted]]
And now it touches the heart itself, and leads the free nature into slavery, and turns the self-ruling minds within us into a miserable confinement. It persuades us to many things, and to breathe with the rest; for it winds itself obliquely like a serpent, and it is a terrible beast in its cunning; it proceeds in a line, dragging its downward course, for having used its belly as feet, and licking the dust perhaps in the manner of wolves, and in the gluttonous overheating of the passions, it moves the conclusion of sin, toward the taste of which each one runs gladly. A And by tempering bitterness with pleasure, it corrupts me with poisonous honey. An enemy who counsels, and a friend who accuses, a gentle slayer, and a murderous accomplice, a guide who leads astray, a kindly dissenter, a relentless, acceptable, obedient dragon; for it charms us, though nothing is set before us; an environment of beauty, while nothing is moving; it forms faces, it paints shapes. It searches the mind, it fumbles the fingers, it causes laughter, it brings the mouth together, and through the conceit of an unseen sin, it has travailed to bring forth active sin. B But who has fully recognized the malice of this dragon? Who is an enemy in giving counsel, and a friend in accusing? Who strangles while acting kindly, and slays those whom he aids? To whom does he provide himself as a guide, only to deceive; whom he loves, he attacks? Who knows not how to keep faith, and yet shows himself a companion, worthy of being accepted, and deserving of trust? For he entices us, and suggests nothing: he exhibits the appearance of beauty, and yet proposes nothing. He fashions masks, he paints images, he pervades the mind, he handles the fingers, he excites laughter, he joins lip to lip, and at last, under the pretense of a feigned sin, he brings forth sin in reality. But I am not entirely unaware, C for as an enemy, he again flees for refuge to those whom he has plotted against, as if he were their guardian, so that the evil standing over them may be double: whether they are taken by force, or perish through deceit. D For indeed, while he lies in wait like an enemy, he induces those whom he has plotted against to take refuge in him as if in a guardian, so that a double evil is imminent for them: since they are either taken by evil violence, or perish through fraud.
A For, not ignorant of the stubborn disposition B of his phantasms, which both distresses and bites me like a cancer, even when I am fleeing from and performing sin, the divine judgment has granted us this ancient, unspeakable serpent, the mirror of darkness, if at least we do not engrave upon ourselves the types of him created according to the image, so that we might have him instead of as a toy, playing with the dragon, even if he gapes widely. For many, having his haughty mind and his inescapable wildness in battles, while possessing the soil of fleshly burdens, and being mingled with the earthly dust, have blunted and turned aside [his blows], like shields that send back to the earth the brittle weapons hurled against them.
If one should take all these things for consideration, and having found the pulse of those things that seem insignificant and of those that are born with us, declare the diagnosis; or, progressing further, should take the divine instrument—the "voice of one crying in the wilderness" to the heart—or, having drawn near to the tongs of the Cherubim, should receive from him the coal of the Word. Or the fire-bright chariot, or the spirited horses, driven by one riding over the path of the heavens, while the rider is shown in life as one lifted high, [free] from the flesh...
that drags him down. A He may bring down fire and hang [suspended] the dew, drawing, pulling back, and shifting the natures [of things]. He shall shut the mouth of the lions through faith, and show the flame of the furnace to be dew. He shall strike the Nile, turning it into blood, and will persuade the sun [even] to shine in the darkness; for to some there was light, but to others dark gloom. He shall split the abyss into a strange path, and show the pillar [of cloud] to be a fire-bright torch by night; he shall fashion loaves of bread where no grain is provided, and shall soothe the famine with a rain of birds; he shall force the rock to gush forth springs. He shall stretch out his hands to put enemies to flight, expressing the image of the cruciform sign; he shall see the bush not consumed by fire, the foreshadowing symbols of what was to come. Then, leaning out like Moses, in fear, finding smoke in the storm and the darkness, and having arrived at the opening of the cleft, he shall scarcely gaze upon the hidden back parts of God, and seeing nothing more, he shall desire all the more the hidden longing. For the desires of those who love are idle, if they quickly attain what they desire; indeed, whoever investigates the essence of God, the more he looks, the more he [grows] dim-sighted in his very gazing. For]
NOTES
850. Two portents which were performed through Elias: that is, the fire for the consummation of the burnt offering, which fell from heaven by his prayers, and the drought of the land preannounced. IV Reg. 18: *And the fire of the Lord fell, and devoured the burnt offering, and the wood, and the stones.* And ibid. 1: *And Elias said ... The Lord God of Israel liveth, in whose sight I stand, if there shall be dew and rain these years, but according to the words of my mouth.*
852. Dan. 6: *And he shut the mouths of the lions, and they did not hurt me.*
855. Dan. 3: *...furnace as a blowing wind of dew, and the fire touched them not at all.*
Exod. 7: *And lifting up the rod, he struck the water of the river before Pharaoh and his servants, which was turned into blood.*
Exod. 10: *And Moyses stretched forth his hand towards heaven: and there were horrible darknesses in all the land of Egypt, etc.*
856. A verse supplemented from Exod. 1126, explaining the miracle that occurred, how while the Egyptians lived in darkness, the Hebrews saw as if in the brightest light, which is read in the Book of Wisdom 17: *But upon them there was spread a heavy night... But to thy holy ones was given a most bright light.*
857. Exod. 13: *The Lord went before them to show the way, by day in a pillar of a cloud, and by night in a pillar of fire, that he might be the guide of the journey at either time.*
859. Exod. 16: *What is this? For they knew not what it was. To whom Moyses said: This is the bread, which the Lord hath given you to eat.*
860. Exod. 16: *And it came to pass in the evening, and a quail coming up, covered the camp, etc.*
861. Exod. 17: *...from that water, that the people might drink.*
862. Exod. 17: *And when Moyses lifted up his hands, Israel overcame: but if he let them down a little, Amalech overcame.*
864. Ibid. 11: *...and the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush, and he saw that the bush was burning and was not burnt.*
865. Through the unburnt bush the mystery of the incarnation is prefigured.
866. Exod. 3: *And Moyses hid his face: for he durst not look at God.*
867. Exod. 19: *But all the mount Sinai was on a smoke: because the Lord was come down upon it in fire, and smoke ascended from it as out of a furnace.* And 20: *Moyses went to the darkness in which God was.* I shall here note in passing that those things which Dionysius, commonly called the Areopagite, sets forth at length, and which are found treated in the same way by the Platonic writers concerning the divine darkness, originated from this appearance as from a source.
868. When Moyses asked that God show him His glory, God replied, Exod. 33: *Thou canst not see my face: for man shall not see me and live... And when my glory shall pass, I will set thee in a hole of the rock, and protect thee with my right hand, till I pass.*
869. *Thou canst not see my face.* What the back parts of God are, namely, those things which were made through Him, and the rest which perhaps might demand some explanation, you will find explained in the cited places. But it is better to listen to Saint Gregory Nazianzen explaining the matter in a few words, that the back parts of God are those things which existed after Him, and declare His divinity to us. Maximus of Tyre, not dissenting from Pisides, urges us to rise to the lofty watchtower of reason, Diss. 1, *perexilasthai*, that we might observe the footsteps of God so that we may know where they are, and what they are.
If, by chance, those who desire it should arrive at their goal. And everyone who searches for the substance of God, by as much as he contemplates, by so much does he close his eyes; for if someone, with insatiable pupils, should gaze into the abyss, or even into the fire-bright disc of the sun, by as much as he gazes, by so much is his vision dimmed (for it is not easy with a steady gaze to look unwaveringly upon the sun). What all-seeing mind will have the strength to look upon the source of the light of the sun that is among us? But, O You who are present from afar with unwavering speed, who remain known to all and yet hard to find, and subtle to all and unwilling to be grasped; for to all you would be unknown, yet you have been known entirely from those things by which you act so that all may see you. For as much as the greatness of your substance is folded up within incomprehensible eminences, by so much have you allowed your activity to be seen by us, not only in the angels, in whom you implanted fire-bright substances, wonderfully fashioning immaterial matter; but if there be any order of substances above us that has escaped our notice in the heavens, in the ether, and in the world before this, and B in the world as it is now being seen, and in that which is before it and after it, if you will—for it travels into fire, into water, into air, and closes the horn and darkens the mind of this one; for there was something, as it seems, even before this world, which to our intellect is observable, but was left unrecorded, etc. C D
into the air, into the earth, into the stars, into plants, into birds, A into every swimming and creeping creature, into every green herb, and even more so into man, through whom, and after whom, all these things pass by: for although the ray of your light is nowhere moved, yet it pervades all things and is not pressed by the narrowness of places; nor is it only the artificer of the greatest things, but it makes all things together, inextricably joined, to subsist. You, I say, O God, direct us, as far as is permitted, to recount those things made by you which appear in this world. For who, looking at the color of apples or of the rose, does not at once know the artificer of that color? Or who, sensing the odor of balsam, has not tasted you, breathing and exhaling more than the balsam itself? B Who raises up the cedar and extends its branches, and places a bitter ointment in the wood? Who boils the nard, and, by perfuming the grass, forces the spike to exhale fragrance? And whence does the palm in parched places produce fruit honeyed with moist clusters? Who has armed the citron with thorns and joined to them swords forged by nature? Who swaddles all the offspring of plants, and to some puts in a bony base, to whom external nakedness is weak—but to others throws a hard hide on the outside, to whom inward softness is delicate? Who gave the lion courage, or to the doe...
NOTE
The voice at that time, and that first command, as it were, became a kind of law of nature, and remained in the earth, providing to it the power of birthing and bearing fruit for the future. But if one were to examine the variety, the shapes, the colors, the quality of the juices, and the usefulness of each fruit, who could recount them? C And here he gradually proceeds to recount other wonders of God, which we see renewed from the very beginning of creation even unto the present day, and preserved in a perpetual order upon the earth. For from what God once said on the second day: "Let the earth bring forth the green herb and fruit-bearing tree" (Gen. i), and on the fourth day: "Let the waters bring forth the reptile of living soul, and the fowl over the earth" (Ibid. 20), and on the fifth day: "Let the earth bring forth the living soul in its kind, beasts and reptiles and the beasts of the earth" (Ibid. 24). That voice, then sent forth, and that first commandment, passed as it were into a law of nature, and clung to the earth, and conferred upon it the power of generating and bearing fruit for the future, as Saint Basil speaks excellently, hom. 5, in Hex. Therefore Pisida begins to discourse on the inherent force and property of plants and animals, and also of other things, according to Dioscorides, Theophrastus, and Galen, whom he has as guides and masters of this treatise, that from thence it might shine more clearly against the Epicureans and Manichæans, how widely the goodness and counsel of divine providence extends. D Almost all the Fathers have treated such an argument most amply, and all have aimed at transferring the natural effects of things to mystical senses; which same thing Pisida surely performs.
A Did He give courses as a remedy for fear? Who strengthened the bull like a laborer, Intending to plow; who of the birds Tuned the tongue like an instrument? So that empty myth-makers might even think There exists among them a cognitive speech? And whence also did the griffin take such strength, And the bull, snatching them from prepared victims? And the winged one is lifted, and walks on four feet? Who persuaded camels, though they are irascible, Not to be defiled by the marriage of a mother? And the beast, thus boiling with lustful passion, Remains temperate against the unlawful union, Refuting Persians who muddy their life? What definitions of Hippocrates having learned, Does the goat, wounded, eating dittany, Immediately spit out the shaft of the arrows? What Galen heals the disease of hawks With the juice of bitter lettuce leaves, Scraping away the visual mist by means of them? And the leopard, when sick, drinks the blood Of a wild goat, and heals the disease. And with moist leaves from a cleansing oak, The camel vomits out burned humors.
NOTES
(936) I would not begrudge conceding that more is to be desired here. For I do not think it probable that he who discussed the properties of animals so abundantly said so little regarding plants. This, O Pisida, is a new material of argument, concerning which I am your author that you should read the most wise Preface of Galen to the books *On the parts of the human body*. Concerning the fear of lions, see above, v. 405. But what is better known than the timorous nature of deer? Yet you may see Aelian, *De nat. anim.* VI, 19, *On the timidity of animals*. However, the *dorcas* (gazelle) is not properly a deer (*dama*), but a species of mountain goat, as is evident from the description of Aelian IX. Oppian also in his book *On hunting* distinguishes the *dorcas* from the deer. I remember reading that the *dorcas* is sharply sighted; hence the Greek words for timidity, *derkō*, *oxyderkia* or *oxydorkia*. For I refrain from mentioning the violent sounds, and how the arts craftily plot against the truth. I will allow that the lion is snatched up as easily as a hare is by an eagle with us, or a vulture. B Indeed, a camel would never mate with its mother, [to teach men] to revere mothers, but not to marry them. C Hippocrates, [it is said], transcends human understanding. They say that in Crete, goats, having been shot and having eaten the herb, cast out the arrows; [to explain] the casting out of arrows from the limbs. D Since Aelian, *Hist. anim.* II, 45, states: When hawks suffer in their sight, they fly straight to the wild lettuce and the wild endive, and pick them, and the juice, being bitter and sharp, they suspend over their eyes—which is to say, they receive it as it flows—and this brings them health. Regarding the leopard or panther, [the author] tells the same thing that Pisida relates. Aldrovandi, *De quadrup.*, p. 76, cites Albertus Magnus as a witness. Manuscript 1126: [reguarding] the camel, which is otherwise of a mild nature, [note] that something similar is found written by others.
If a dog eats green grass A, it expels the suffering of black bile. Wolves eat earth, hares eat beetles, the lion eats monkeys, and swans eat frogs. When goats dine on raw scammony, they spit out their indigestion. And, setting aside Aesculapius, that false god, the stork eats snakes and will not get sick. Whence does the catoblepas, breathing forth innate flame, B 960 breathing forth a blast from its nostrils as it burns with fire, turn back the flow of the fire downwards? And it sends the onrush far away, like an archer, like an Etnean and pouring flame, hurling vapor like a thunderbolt? A If it did not have a law given to it, and did not move the boiling of the flame downwards, it would have weighed down the earth with its remains. And whence are the superior breeds of animals made base by those appearing to be of moderate power? For every horse trembles at the whip-lash, and the bull, struck with frenzy, flees from the gadfly; and the dog, having been beaten, fears the lion. But a vile gnat disturbs us, B biting, buzzing, and waking us up many times. And the small, grunting, newborn young of swine strike fear into the might of elephants. And another small creature, with moist-side, inflicts destruction upon a beast by the excision of its liver.
NOTES
Although this is not surprising; for Pisida could have read others besides Hippocrates, Galen, and Dioscorides, since almost countless authors existed in antiquity who wrote about plants and medicines, whose writings, and even names, have perished, as can be seen in Galen, *De simpl. medic.*, lib. 6, p. 144, who enumerates some of them.
951. Regarding dogs purging themselves with grass, Aelian refers to this, VIII, 9, who calls "agrostis" or grass the herb growing in walls. Regarding wolves eating earth, see above, v. 806. That hares eat beetles, and swans eat frogs for a remedy, no one, as far as I know, reports. But that the flesh of a monkey is a remedy for lions to restore their vigor broken by age, Phile affirms, *Hist. anim.* 65; but Aelian, *Var. hist.* 1, 9, says that a monkey is useful to a lion for all illnesses: If a lion is sick, nothing else is useful to it; but if it eats a monkey, that becomes the remedy for the disease. Silence regarding the goat among other authors. Pisida says that goats eat the scammony—about which Dioscorides writes, IV, 171—raw, not boiled. C Morellius translated it erroneously, thinking the poet had attributed to scammony a quality similar to wormwood, when this is only a play on words: for he marvels at how raw scammony expels crudity. Morellius uncovered his own error in his *Comment. ad Hex. Basil.*, p. 728.
957. Clement of Alexandria mockingly ridicules Aesculapius, *Cohort. ad gent.*, p. 23: "You even have a doctor among the gods; but this doctor was greedy, and his name was Aesculapius."
958. D ...are related to be healed by [ciconias], as Aristotle narrates, *Hist. anim.* IX, 7; Pliny, VIII, 41, and Aelian, VI, 46. See Salmasius on Solinus, p. 501, who thinks that storks, like ibises in Egypt, hunt snakes; and that, having been wounded by them, they often prepare a remedy for themselves with origanum. 959. Regarding the catoblepas, a Libyan beast, compare Pliny, VIII, 32; Solinus, 50; Aelian, VII, 5. 963. The poet elegantly calls "pouring flame" ignited torrents, commonly "Lava," which, erupting from Mount Etna and Vesuvius, slide down into the fields below, as happens in our own times not only once. 964. *Pyrsoballon* is better, as the rule of prosody holds. 966. *Catoblepas* is so called because it always looks *kato*, downwards. See the description of this beast in Aelian. Cod. [1126] has "equos frenum et flagellum." Pisida ingeniously composed *seiromastigx* from two words; for *seira* is the bit, and *mastix*, the whip. That the gadfly (*oestrum*) or *asilum* drives a bull to madness is better known than needs telling. See Aelian, VI, 37; Virgil, *Georg.* III, 147: "To which the Roman name is *asilo*; the Greeks call it *oestron*, harsh, sounding bitterly: at which the whole herd, terrified, flees through the woods." Regarding the fear dogs strike into lions, see above, v. 405, and regarding the gnat, v. 72. Regarding elephants, however, dreading swine, thus Aelian, I, 58: "The elephant shudders at the grunt of a pig," also VIII, 28, and XVI, 36. See Aelian VI, 25, and X, 47, and in Salmasius on Solinus...
A clandestinely attacking the beast as it gapes, 980 it runs through its bowels, like a tube, and cutting a hidden door from the rear, the killer flees, having escaped safely. Yet there is another nature of a bird, which feeds upon the teeth of the beast, 985 and feasts upon the remaining scraps; and it, showing the affection of a noble friend, and respecting the food of the table, whenever it sees the other drawing near, cries out, flaps its wings, runs around it with its feet, 990 and scratches it with its claws, and before the slaughter it becomes a herald of destruction, life-saving; B and it puts to the test those friends who do not come to the aid of their companions in need. For it was necessary, I think, that those natures of great bulk 995 should receive help from weak bodies; so that no one, seeing their loftiness, might fall into impious suspicions; which is what happened to the drunkenness in Egypt, led astray not only by the greatest beasts, 1000 but even down to vile reptiles and wild animals, having drunk deep of the surge of impiety. These things the Hebrews, having been taught them long ago by the Egyptians, and emulating their life in their own evils, C followed.
NOTE. ... 997. What Pisida means is clear. That which Virgil, Georg. IV, ver. 219, said of bees, makes the matter clearer: "Some have held that bees possess part of the divine mind, and draughts of heavenly origin."
998. The madness of the Egyptians in deifying all nature was a subject of mockery even to the pagans themselves. Most famous are the verses of Juvenal, Sat. XV: "Who knows not, Volusius of Bithynia, what monsters mad Egypt worships? One part adores the crocodile; another fears the Ibis, fed on serpents... There the blue-scaled fish is worshipped, here a whole town reveres a dog; no one Diana. It is a sin to violate leeks or onions, and to break them with a bite. O holy nations, for whom these deities grow in the gardens!"
Thus also Cicero, Tusc. quaest. V, condemned the minds of the Egyptians as imbued with the errors of depravity, and Maximus Tyrius, Dissert. 38, declared that he could in no way bear their custom, who worshipped the ox, the bird, and the goat. Regarding the superstitions of the Egyptians, see the Commentary of Joan. Clericus on Exod. XX, Melchior Leidekker, De republ. Hebr. cap. 4, and the dissertations which the most learned Calmet has prefixed for reading to the twelve minor prophets.
1002. Neither commandments nor threats were of such great weight as to restrain the Hebrews from being polluted by the abominations of Egyptian idols, or at least, after being led out of captivity, to cast off the superstitions to which they had been accustomed; for they carried them with them into the desert, and into the land of promise itself. Compare ch. XX of Ezekiel, which seems to contain a sort of history of Israelite perfidy and impiety.
A They extolled the same life in their wickedness, And exalted creation to deity, down to the fly. 1005 Who gathers the monsters of the sea and the hills In the deserts of the abyss; Lest, having entered the thoroughfares, It should stand in the way and trouble the ships? And who makes the little fish, the *naucrates*, B 1010 An adversary to ships in full flight, And lifts up the pliant fleet, moving as it does, And contends against the violent blowing winds? For a fin, having circled round towards the middle of its breast Like a cymbal, 1015 Pressing against the ships that are running, It stays the wind, and the current, even if it runs, And beats back the curved foam against the swell; Until a diver, with a sword or a whetted razor, 1020 Cuts the fish, skilled at running the depths, Or, having cast salt upon it, dries it out; And it becomes a key for birth-pangs, When she struggles and wishes to leap forth, And against the lubrications the fetus bursts forth. 1025 Whence does the nature of the *porphyrio*, like the turtle-dove, Abominate a second marriage? Which, if it sees a lewd woman among us, Its body withers away, pressed by hunger, C And wishing not even to behold the sight, 1030 With a speaking silence it disciplines life. Who shows the eel how to produce its offspring?
NOTE. 1004. You will understand that Pisides notes the idol Beelzebub, that is to say the God-Fly, who was worshipped by the Philistines in the city of Accaron, and whom King Ochozias—as it is in book IV of Kings 1, 16—sent to consult regarding his bodily ailment, to the indignation of Elias. St. Philastrius of Brescia, in *De haeresibus* 15, narrates that the sect of the Muscaccaronites existed among the Jews. See Calmet’s Dissertation prefixed to the books of Kings, *On the gods of the Philistines*, and Selden, *On the Syrian gods*, syntagm. II, cap. 6. 1005. See Aelian, IX, 44, who agrees with Pisides. Saint Basil likewise, homil. 7, n. 4 in *Hexaemeron*: "The monsters know the manner of living assigned to them by nature: they occupy that sea which is situated beyond the habitable regions, and lacks islands; they remain within their own borders, and neither damage the islands nor the maritime cities." 1008. *Cod.* 1126. 1009. "To hold the ship," and *eche-neida* "to have a ship," this little fish—some say it has feet, though it has none; but it appears so, because it has wings similar to feet. They say it has feet, not having them; but it appears so, because it has wings similar to feet. 1014. *Cod.* 1126: "embracing." 1017. And some use it for trials and love-potions. 1020. Wonderful! Some of the Greeks have handed down that through slippery births, and those descending, it is kept until maturity; others, that if preserved in salt and bound to pregnant women, it loosens the delivery, and for this reason is called by another name, *odinolytem*. Pliny, ibid. lib. IX, 41, agrees with Aristotle, who in the stated location says it is useful for legal cases and for certain sorceries. *Cod.* has "joining." 1024. Saint Basil, homil. 8, 6, and Clement of Alexandria, *Paedag.* lib. I, p. 106, praise the chastity of turtle-doves and doves. In the same way Aelian, III, 44, who regarding the porphyrio, ibid. 42, had previously premised this: "It labors with fierce rivalry, and observes the women who are without a husband: and if it finds that the mistress of the house has committed adultery, it strangles itself." *Cod.* "to have the sight." 1029. "Let it have a speaking silence." 1050. Regarding eels, all writers seem to have followed Aristotle, who in IV, 11, says thus: "An eel neither..." [original-script column: see facsimile]
B is male, nor female, nor does it generate from itself, nor do all males possess semen, except for the eel; and the eel itself possesses neither semen nor egg." But how one should think the generation of eels occurs, he relates in lib. vi, 16, determining that they arise from putrid matter. See Casaubon’s Comment. chap. 13, on lib. vii of Athenaeus; Saint Basil, hom. 9, n. 2, has embraced the opinion of the philosophers.
1032. Pliny expressed the matter more clearly in a few words, ix, 74: "Eels rub themselves against the rocks: those scrapings come to life: nor is there any other generation for them."
1055. "Side-mother" is a play on the word *pleura* (rib/side) and *pleura-metra* (side-mother), which perhaps we have not expressed sufficiently well, although Pisida, as he will explain below, meant that reference to Gen. ii: *God cast a slumber upon Adam... and took one of his ribs and filled up the flesh for it. And the Lord God built the rib into a woman*, etc. Thus Pisida refutes the opinion of all those who, after Philo, *Alleg. legis*, lib. iii, dreamed that the Mosaic history of the rib, which God took from Adam, was either to be understood allegorically or interpreted physically.
*In the same codex:* Aristotle, *Hist. anim.* v, 1, and those who have followed him, said there are two generations of animals, as of plants: from semen, or from an egg, and from putrid matter. The Epicureans, and those who denied divine providence, since they did not understand generation from putrid matter, and many other things, took refuge in the fortuitous collision of atoms; and they freed God from the care of the world, for they thought otherwise that He had created many useless, and as it seemed to them, harmful things, and had stirred up confusion in the world. Having cursed this blasphemy, Pisida demonstrates that God's power, shining forth even more in such variety of things, is to be adored.
*Cod.* "to have the sight." 1029. "Let it have a speaking silence." 1050. Regarding eels, all writers seem to have followed Aristotle, who in IV, 11, says thus: "An eel neither... A ...being without a mother and foreign to seed? Is it just that, scattering the parts of its own flank-scrapings upon the rocky depths, it produces children by a strange conception, and becomes a sea-borne "side-mother"? And while silent, does it teach by nature that Moses did not err, if he says that a rib became the incubator of life? For it is not right to blame the Constructor of impossible things for discordant confusions; rather, He must be praised when He creates nature from things that are beyond nature: and He does this as a proof of His authority. B Being immaterial, if He creates a material nature, and not being mutable, if He creates a mutable life, who is it that clothes the tortoise in a shell, and shows the humble-bodied creature being carried inside its own home? Who, having implanted a white spark in the transparent firefly, makes the crawling creature a light, decreeing the same creature to creep and to fly? And by what springs, or hidden depths, does the salamander resolve the burning furnaces into soot? Who has placed understanding in the fire-born creatures, and the power of discernment to know what is beneficial? For, drawn forth from the inclination of the fire...
A they run about like fledglings, having the flame as a breast and the radiance as food, and they always yearn for their fire-bearing midwife; and the all-consuming mouth becomes for them alone the life-sustainer. Who shows the dung-beetles to be breeders 1060 of offspring, having no organs for giving birth? Those that gather neglected dung, roll it into a sphere when the sun has cast its heat, until the rotation of the cylinders, having been heated, makes the seed pregnant in the dung; thus, finally, from a motherless birth, they will perform a strange labor of generation. 1070 Which things the bold fabulist, B passing over, has used an sharpened tongue against Porphyry, though the nature of his mind was accustomed to flutter; he sported with deceived myths, having found meadows, and reaping thorns. For he ought to have wondered at these things more, and to have sung the praises of the almighty power of God, 1080 how it reaches even through these, the most lowly things. And not to have dared to speak a likeness of God in the dung-laboring and foul-smelling beetles, on which they appear to turn the spherical dung with reversed feet, and to make a work of the revolutions above, and to fashion heavens out of dung. O dim mind, O C bold-mouthed force!
NOTE. 1060. Most rightfully, for all writers after Aristotle affirm that the pyrausta live in fire. Aelian, loc. cit. This also excites admiration, when they come out from the nourishing fire and touch the cold air, they die immediately. But the beetles, in the dung which they roll, harbor themselves over the winter, and breed little worms, from which beetles are born. The beetle is an animal without a female. 1065. It sows into the sphere which it rolls. Regarding the abstaining from living things, 1071 with Porphyry being a foe to Christ and a calumniator of the truth, we have touched upon some things in the prolegomena. Whoever desires more, let him approach the most learned dissertation of Luke Holstenius, *De ejus vita et scriptis*. Pisida finds fault with him, because in book v, 9, out of hatred for Christians to bolster his own Theurgic system, he had uttered many things, and thus spoke impiously of the beetles: "Unlearned indeed, and ignorant of divine truths, he surely abominates the beetle." The Egyptians, however, revered it as a living image of the sun. For every beetle is male, and having cast its semen into the mud, and having made it spherical, carries it back with its hind feet—as the sun carries the heaven; and it awaits a period of twenty-eight days, a lunar period. 1079 "Signifying the Only-begotten, or birth, or father, or the world," the Egyptians fashion the beetle. D When the male wishes to beget offspring, having taken the dung of an ox, it fashions a globule of it of the same figure as the world, which, when it has rolled it from sunrise to sunset with reversed feet, it itself again turns toward the sunrise, so that it may produce a figure very similar to the world, and express it, and it turns into the rising. ... The proportion that exists between the beetle and the prince of the planets, Ruelius expressed more clearly, in his book *De stirp. nat.*
A If the vault of heaven has been established by God, It comes about for the beetle by the day. Who brings forth vultures in a seedless birth, When there is no male of their kind among them, Showing a shadow of a mystical silence? 1090 For only they, when the pores are blocked, Pour forth the milk of birds; Cutting their own thigh, with blood-stained Streams of milk they give life to their young.
For me, it seems, the vulture is to be venerated more, 1095 Because it is wounded out of sympathy for its offspring, Than the greatest Jupiter, for his lechery, Whose thigh was cut for a ruinous birth. Who fashioned the mouth of the pelicans instead of a spear, With strange, long-darting weapons, 1100 And opens for them a ravenous maw For the insatiable snatching of fish? And with what skill do they [treat] the shells, when...
O blindness of mind! O insane audacity of the mouth! It is true that only one heaven has been produced by God in the nature of things, yet the beetle produces a new one daily.
B Who brings vultures into the light, begotten without seed, when there is no male gender among them, so as to reveal a type of ineffable comprehension and a certain light shadow? For since they themselves carry hidden vessels of milk (for among birds they alone pour it out), they cut their own thigh, and with a bloody afflux of "milk" they revive their offspring. Wherefore, in my view, greater veneration should be held for the vulture, which dissects itself out of compassion for its own brood, than for Jupiter, who, out of supreme lechery—he who was to give an exitial offspring to the world—abscised his own thigh. Who shaped the mouth of the pelicans like a lance, and equipped it with long spikes of a new kind? Who opens their omnivorous jaws with such a gape for their inexhaustible plunderings of fish?
[Notes omitted for brevity in this translation output]
A
In their own narrowed shells, They distinguish with a refined art; For having the folds of the shells joined together, Not knowing how to effect a solution, They slacken them in the fire of their entrails, And the hardness of the folds undergoes a loosening, Being slackened by the warmth within; Then, vomiting forth the bonds that held them before, They strip bare the flesh in a naked struggle, No longer wearing the shell-like shield. Who persuaded the loud-voiced bird inside the roof, To tell the time of the night, And to foresee the sun not yet present, And to awaken the sleeping laborers? B
And what sort of god of Homer’s creations Cleanses the old age of the burning phoenix, And having turned the old bird to ash in a wretched tomb, Brings forth the remains of the tomb alive? O Greeks, having yielded to Greek words, Be persuaded then to revere the resurrection. Who gives prophetic bounds to the winged creatures? For the mouth of the long-lived crow Prophesies rain in clear weather. And before the blowing, it reveals the gusts, The sea-gull having curved the winged cloud. C But of what teachers does the ibis avail itself? And is it proved wiser than Galen himself? For since the lower exit is obstructed, D
[Moving] in its inability how it will open the door, A Stretching its long neck obliquely, It crafts a swift siphon with its mouth, And having poured the juice of salt within, What? Does it bring forth the vultures with such speed without seed? For since there is no male of their race present to them; They who reveal the one who carried the fire [of God] in our midst, the Virgin, To us as far as is possible for a bird — For I think it was necessary for such a great miracle To have faint impressions even in nature; So that it might not seem a novelty in birth [giving], Nor that we should record those things of the birth to the extreme. For they do not remain virgins, as she does, When that which is born runs to its exit, Breaks the bolts, and passes through the doors. If, then, even the species of birds give birth, Being pregnant by the movement of the spirit; How much more the Virgin who gave birth Shall have the proof of the seedless conception, Filled by the life-giving Spirit? Thus something has been instilled even in birds As a faithful enigma for giving birth without seed. And what tripod of Phoebus, most prophetic, Teaches the blind mouse, the omnivorous one, Being in the labyrinths of the excavations, To block before the time of the movement of the winds The exits of the holes lying obliquely, B And to make others, [facing] in opposite directions, where The earth of the ground hides the gusts. And what Nereus gives to the urchins in the waves Predictive eyes in the deep?
[The Latin text provided in the source is a secondary rendering of the preceding passage and accompanying commentary. Per instructions, the secondary Latin version is skipped.]
[alt-version omitted]
the storm, so that those fleeing from the gale may find refuge in the stillness of the stones? B Who persuaded the wise, industrious bee to practice geometry and to raise three-storied houses out of hexagonal structures? And to make the galleries not by directing them along a straight line, but obliquely, 1170 so that the lower feet might not slip because of the heavy burdens from above; but that rather the parallel positions of the counter-sloping structures might be props, so that the house might stand firm, 1175 and none of the liquid moisture might leak out.
A Consider the geometer Euclid from this, and do not dare to evade even the smallest figure or line, lest the center of the bee's wise instruction strike you and force you to learn. 1180 Who formed the thin-fingered spiders and taught them to weave, and to spin out filaments for their work from their own entrails? By what linear art do they place foundations for their bases and extend their bindings? 1185 And at the center point, with the raising of the filaments, they complete precise circles, and in the space between the void, they fit together counter-composed pillars.
NOTES.
1163. Plutarch, *De solert.*, p. 979: "I produce all the sea urchins together, when they perceive an approaching winter and surge, fortifying themselves with little stones, so that they might not be overturned due to their lightness, nor dragged away when a swell occurs, but remain firmly attached thanks to the little stones." ...
1165. Who has not praised, who has not admired the industry of the bee? See Aristotle, *Hist. anim.* ix, 11; and Virgil, *Georg.* iv, not to mention six hundred other authors who have published entire treatises on the hives, republic, and duties of bees. Pisida has followed Saint Basil, viii, 4. I would gladly insert his words; both because one brings light to the other, and because perhaps no one has expressed the artifices and geometric knowledge of the bees in the construction of their honeycomb more elegantly than Basil. But let him who wishes compare them.
1166. Aelian, v, 13: "The bees are shown to practice geometry, and beauties of shapes, and beautiful moldings, and art and rules, and what the wise call a compass; and the most beautiful of shapes, both hexagonal and six-sided and equiangular." ... "Three-storied houses," since bees are triple among themselves in age and condition, so Aldrovandus in *De insectis*, p. 22, reports that they divide their cells tripartitely; Saint Basil, in the aforementioned place, assigns another cause: "Then the galleries are two-storied and three-storied; so that the liquid might not leak out to the exterior because of its weight."
1169. Cod. 1126 has "obliquely." Pisida calls them feet, or bases, which Saint Basil, in the aforementioned place, calls floors; yet he agrees with him regarding the reason why the combs are arranged obliquely: "So that the floors might not suffer when fitted into the spaces; but the angles of the hexagons below are the foundations and the support of those lying above." ...
1177. He puts the bees before the famous geometer Euclid, whose twelve books of elements are read even to our own times with the greatest utility for all. Saint Gregory Nazianzen, *orat.* 54, p. 554: "What Euclid ever expressed these things by imitation, philosophizing on lines that do not exist, and laboring in demonstrations?" ...
1180. Aristotle, ix, 59, and others describe the various kinds of spiders and their industry in crafting webs; Phile, ix, cleverly calls spiders *thin-fingered*, that is, having delicate or skillful fingers. Phile, who often imitated Pisida, calls these spinning maidens: "And the nature of spiders is full of devices, surpassing girls with thin fingers." ...
1182. Aelian, i, 21: "It does not take thread from outside, but draws the filaments out from its own womb."
1185. Idem, vi, 57: "They are also naturally skilled at geometry; at any rate, they guard the center, and the circle from it and the circumference they make with great precision, and they have no need of Euclid."
A
HEXAEMERON
How is it that the mechanism of such fine craftsmanship, 1191 as if constructed by a spider, does not collapse, providing a two-fold work from a single thread—linen for the hunt and a roof for a dwelling? Let anyone who foolishly declares that matter is without a beginning, 1193 and who looks upon this, be ashamed; for if a worm, having no matter within itself, weaves webs, then one must surely affirm that, first, the spiders existed in time, who construct their work from fibrous threads, and secondly, that matter existed.
But what new logic has instructed the swan to come forth into the air to produce its sweet musical measures? 1200 It crafts a delightful melody with its breaths, and I know that I am filled with far more wonder at this than at Orpheus striking his mythical lyre. And having obtained what instrument does the gnat 1205 possess a trumpet's voice? Or by what logic is it constructed in such an incomprehensible smallness, yet possesses a form, and being winged carries a mouth, a neck, an eye, a belly, feet, and the unseen internal structures 1210 which its fineness has not allowed to be felt? For nature is not as much in the greatest things as it is in these small, incomprehensible things.
B [alt-version omitted]
C D
A
The manifestation of omnipotent craftsmanship.
Come, you grain-stealing, industrious ant, 1215 storing the grain cut in half down below, lest it get damp and rot from the moisture, and sprout ruinous grass from beneath. But when the clouds thicken, and the commotions of the winds blow against your hard-earned labors, whence does every farmer know you to be a prophet of Zamolxis, even better than he? When, giving advance warning of settled, clear weather, you spread the grain from the damp depths 1220 into the woodless fire, carrying it to the sun, so that having been heated by the fiery beams, it might be found toasted like baked bread. For the ant’s concern was not of this sort, to find the pattern of a knowing neglect, B if there were not a Providence. Do not be boastful, you weighers of the causes in the stars; but rather marvel even at an ant, how it signifies the winter and foretells the summer. Who gives the manifold nature to the eggs, and shows in small forms the elements, having cast into them the thin as air, the yellow as fire, and the white as water, the hard as earth? For nature provides a crust on the outside, like a middle-marking of the earth, so that it might neither release the tensions from without, nor dull the internal passages. For within them, instead of a womb and seed, 1240 a small blood-red dot has grown.
NOTES.
1215. All the praised authors commend this wonderful industry of the ant. Pliny, loc. cit., says: They store the gnawed seeds, lest they should sprout into crops again from the earth. They divide the larger ones at the entrance. They bring them out when soaked by rain, and dry them.
1220. They say Zamolxis, by nation a Geta, was a disciple and slave of Pythagoras. Returning to his homeland, he was considered a god after his death by his own people and the Thracians, who admired his wisdom. See Iamblichus, Vit. Pyth., cap. 50. C
1222. St. Basil, loc. cit.: For it cuts the middle of the fruits with its own claws, so that they do not sprout and become useless for food; and it cools them when it senses they are soaked; and it does not bring them out at every season, but when it senses that the air is destined to remain in a tranquil state.
1252. Id. demonstrates. Oval (ovum) among the Egyptians was a symbol of the world; hence it was sacred in the orgies of Bacchus, says Plutarch, in Sympos.: as an example of all things generating the world, and containing them in itself. Pisida elegantly explains this similarity. First, he considers that the egg represents the world, because from it all animals emerge, both male and female, with no difference apparent to the eyes; then, because the four parts of which the egg is composed are images of the four elements; so that the membrane, which is for Aristotle (De general. anim. III, 2) is the air; the yellow part, which for the same Aristotle is the yolk or *vitellus*, represents fire; the albumen is water; the hard crust, by which the eggs are covered, is the earth; for the eggs are called *skleroderma* (hard-skinned) by Aristotle, and the earth for Pisida is hard in one half of its part. D
1242. Aristotle, Hist. anim. III, 3, discussing how the chick is generated in the egg, says: "The heart exists as a blood-red point in the white fluid; this point already leaps and moves, just as in a living creature." Pliny, X. 74, almost translates Aristotle: "In the middle of the yolk of all eggs there is a small, blood-like drop, which they believe to be the heart of birds, thinking it is the first thing to be born in every body; certainly in the egg that drop leaps and palpitates." The animal itself is formed from the white liquid of the egg. The food is in the yolk. Whoever wishes to know more about this matter, let him approach Aristotle himself in the aforementioned place, *De generatione*, and *Hist. anim.*, where he discusses eggs most learnedly. Among the more recent ones, however, whom shall I name rather than the illustrious Harvey? Who, having been educated at Padua and returned to England, wrote so brilliantly on the generation of animals and on the egg, and noted that the leaping point, which Aristotle had observed in eggs, is also to be found in viviparous creatures.
Through which, therein, it embodies the manifold Into flesh, into bone-structure, into the outpouring of wings. 1245 Who, seeing the peacock, would not marvel At the gold intertwined as though with sapphire, And the plumage in emerald and purple, The multiform compositions of the colors, All unconfused and yet commingled? 1250 Who sets the locust in battle array as a whole race? A winged nation for the destruction of the Egyptians, The flying weapon as a memorial of fear, A cloud-born arrow from an unseen archer, A ready spear, a self-moving sword, A A dense phalanx, a myriad-mouthed blade, The leaping bulwark of unstable warfare. For it does not stand, but strikes and runs; It destroys while crawling, and shakes while winging; It seems to flee, yet remains as it turns back; It blights before the season and harvests before the time, It melts the trees and withers the grass; It milks the raw moisture from the shoots, It harvests the leaves, and pastures upon the harvest, And gathers its limbs, and stretches them again. B C D
A
As archers do with the bowstrings; And it wounds the body of its enemies With the arrows of its counter-angled legs. And let no man of inflated speech despise us As considering things small and almost dissected, Moving in vain the axle of the Word. For if one seeing a house adorned Glittering with gilded images, But fitted also with iron and wood, And with the humble joining of shells, Would marvel at the small things along with the greatest, Cherishing all, and applauding the workman: How shall he not much more, of the all-working Word, Marvel with fear at all the works— The ant, and the gnat, and the locust? How could such crawling and such smallness Be thought worthy of such care, That both prudence and power should be instilled In a thin, humble, and narrow frame? And how is it that it did not quail before such terrible power, To apply such fine workmanship to such great works? Whence does the peacock come forth beautiful again, A bird clear-shining and star-spangled by nature, Clothed in a purple of feathers, By which, arrogant and puffed up in appearance, It alone traverses before all other birds; Or does it, out of effortless creations, Mingle a great outpouring of colors upon it? And what law also persuades the silk-worm To weave the brightly-spun threads, B Which, having been dyed in the blush of purple, Sensibly temper the pride of those who rule? C
consecuta Providentiæ dignitatem, ut gracili, pusillo et angusto corpori indita sit prudentia et robur; et quomodo tremenda Dei potestas ab hac operis tenuitate ceteris maximis operibus adjungendo se non subduxerit? Unde procedit iterum formosus pavo, avis tota refulgens, et stellis ornatus, alasque indutus purpura, qua superbus; et tumens aspectu, solus omnes ceteras volucres antecellit? Et unde hæc purpura, quæ nullo labore fuit parata et confecta, tanta colorum varietate ipsum distinxit? Quæ vero lex vermi inter seras suadet, ut egregio opere deducta fila intexat, quæ cum sunt infecta colore purpureo, regum sapientium fastum temperet? D
A Memory, in fact, reverently recurs to them, that before them the splendor of the robe was the worm's garment and corruptible covering. Which, bearing witness to the resurrection that concerns us, dies within its own monuments, having received the selfsame house as a tomb; and when almost all the fleshly part belonging to it has decayed or sprouted or dissolved, when time calls, it returns from corruption and ineffably brings forth its former shape, in the small remaining remnant, being embodied toward the frame it had from the beginning. It frequently accuses those who are led astray, and even while living, it refutes bitter unbelief, if one, not being persuaded even by worms as teachers, at length reveres the resurrection. For what pardon of speech would they attain, who with their own fingers handle the dead worm as a traveler from the tomb, either seeing or closing their eyes in blindness, having turned faith into unbelief? How does the swallow, from a sightless state, go forth after three days with sight restored, having rubbed one herb upon its pupils? Which judges of ancient doctrines have not ineptly ordained one might call a "swallow-wort," having acquired its worth from the facts. And in summer it is modulated like a lyre, but when winter invades, it draws back, and strives to find a tree to provide it a home; for enclosed within the tree's trunk, it is wrapped in what seem like bands: there it sheds its garment of feathers, which soon, renewed, [it possesses again.]
NOTE. A pious sense, which Pisida draws from the contemplation of the silkworm, you see how widely it extends. For what else are all these things that provide us with food and clothing than earth and worms?
1297. Cod. 1126, "as a most certain witness of the resurrection," employing the silkworm, St. Basil, Hom. VIII, 8, thus warns women weaving the silken thread: "Recalling in memory the transformation of this animal, receive the manifest notion of the resurrection, and do not disbelieve the change which Paul announces to all."
1300. "Which bears witness to the resurrection." 1301. "Of threads," *Enthalon nekys* (inlaid corpse). "Just as the things related concerning the Indian horned worm; which, having first transformed into a caterpillar, then advancing, becomes a silkworm; and not even in this form does it remain, but with loose and broad petals it becomes winged."
1310. Cod. 1126, "the dead." 1312. "They are not persuaded to have reverence [for the resurrection]." 1318. "Of this herb, men desire to become masters, and not even now have they attained to this diligence."
1321. "Swallow-wort," *chelidonia*, a most well-known species of herb, Aelian relates (loc. cit.) that men have nowhere been able to find: "Of this herb, men, however much they may desire to be masters, never hitherto has their eagerness been satisfied."
1325. "Clearly," the name of the swallow was given to it because the ancients thought it cured diseases of the eyes, and had learned it, with the swallow itself demonstrating it.
1324. "Miraculous! Pisida [compares] the chirping of the swallow to a lyre."
A When winter enters, it shrinks, And contrives to find a tree for a home, And wrapped up, having composed itself upon the wood, It sheds its feathered covering; But again it clothes itself in a new one, 1330 As if it were a corpse raised from the tomb; For spring brings its resurrection, And it cries out much, and speaks through the day, If there is, indeed, even among birds, language. O man, learn to honor the resurrection, 1335 Considering the talkative swallow from the tomb. Who raises the sown wheat from the depths Of the earth, and brings forth the grain that, as if in a tomb, Has perished, bearing a thousand ears? Not, as it seems to the sophists of fictions, 1340 By speaking of the corruption of one thing as the existence of another, Nor, as they say, the birth of wasps from the decay of a horse, Or beetles from an ass— 1342 B truly, the identity of the species is never changed, but the thing itself remains what it is.
NOTES
[1525] Pliny (x, 36) said that swallows are half-yearly, because they live with us for six months and elsewhere for the other six. Regarding their arrival and departure, all is uncertain. The most honey-tongued Anacreon alone seems to have known where they migrate, who, addressing his swallow in an ode, says it vanishes to the Nile or to Memphis. Pisida shows that swallows hide in nearby places, according to Aristotle (VI, 16), who says: "For they have already been seen in many places, stripped of feathers." Pliny (x, 34) reported the same. But against all these, both the ancients and C more recent writers agree with Pisida, saying that swallows do not fly across the sea in northern regions when winter approaches, but gather in great numbers, and together, entangled by their claws, beaks, and wings, dive into the waters, and having been carried down to the bottom, are kept warm by the vapor of the tepid earth, and are nourished throughout the whole winter either by moisture or by the lethargy itself; but in the new spring, they emerge and fly away. In other places, however, they report that these same birds, collected in the manner of grapes and conglobated, either hang from the highest vault throughout the winter or hide in the trunks of trees. All of which Pedo Albinovanus expressed briefly in his elegy on the death of Maecenas, when he said: "The waters congeal, the swallow hides in the rocks." 1333. This is an "epistrophe," or a hesitation; for above (v. 931) he was mocking those who kept saying that birds converse with one another. 1356. The Apostle was the first of all to use this simile of wheat (1 Cor. xv, 36): "Foolish one, that which you sow is not made alive unless it first dies. And: That which you sow, you do not sow the body that is to be, but a bare grain, for example, of wheat or of some one of the others." After Saint Paul, all who have discoursed on the resurrection have said similar things. See Saint Clement, *Epistle to the Corinthians*, xxiv; Saint Theophilus, *To Autolycus*, I, 15; Athenagoras D and Tertullian, *On the Resurrection*, and others who have illustrated and explained the aforementioned chapter of the Apostle.
1339. See above, v. 1010, where we touched upon the opinion of Aristotle regarding the generation of plants and animals. We consider it necessary to append the words here. [index: entries preserved] Pisida openly attacks Aristotle and that famous axiom of that same philosopher: "For the generation of this is the corruption of that, and the corruption of this is the generation of that." See 1 and 4, *On Generation and Corruption*, where the philosopher defines what generation is, what corruption is, and what alteration is. Therefore, since the poet rejects this opinion, and ridicules the examples regarding the origin of wasps and bees which are accustomed to be brought forward to confirm it, he seems to have remained not far from the tenets of more recent thinkers, who agree that all things arise from an egg and a seed. For he maintains below, verse 1344, that "the identity of the species is not changed": as if to say that any animal or any plant does not arise spontaneously or from decay, but from a certain vital principle, to which individual things return after their own species are preserved. What could one desire more clearly in this matter, or more convenient to the laws of nature? 1342. Let it suffice to confirm the story concerning the generation of these insects, repeated by six hundred writers, most appropriately by the testimony of Pliny, who, when he had told many things about bees in book XI, 23, continues thus: "Truly, when they are lost entirely, there are those who think they are repaired by fresh ox-carcasses covered with dung: Virgil [writes of] the exanimated body of bullocks; just as wasps [arise] from the bodies of horses, and hornets from the bodies of donkeys, beetles [from the bodies of] asses; nature transforming things into others."
A From the bee, the worker, does the sameness of the race remain unchanged? 1345 For this seed itself of the decaying thing, To the substance which it held, returns again. Who of our own procreators of seed, Knits together into an osseous structure the corruption? For if in us also the seed does not decay, B 1350 Being buried like a dead body in the womb, The infant is not embodied by gestation, Organized into skin and sinew. Who, then, does not shudder at the power of the Creator, If both the first and again the second 1355 Shows us rising to life from corruption? But there are, as clear evidence for us, C Toward the light-bringing resurrection of the dead, And to show the wounds among us, And to set the wheals as witnesses, 1360 More resonant than a noisy trumpet: For when a putrefactive ichor intervenes, Producing a fistula from a smoldering sore, Would anyone not find of the putrefied member A resurrection as if in part, 1365 If the first things do not flow away, and suffer dissolution, Or take on a complete melting down from corruption, Of the flesh within it having vanished? For thus it becomes saved again, Tempered by fire, or divided by the sword, D 1370 Or even by honey-wine, and in some way.
having found a roscid humor applied—by the inexplicable power and judgment of the drugs, whether astringent, cooling, or purgative—the member is saved and will obtain its resurrection? How, therefore, do honey-wine, fire, and the sword, and indeed the plaster, A the root, the dust, and the dew, restrain the flow and gather the skin, or recall the old flesh, or having fashioned a new body upon the old one? And shall He who fashioned the body not join again the body that has flowed away, even if it has rotted in the earth, or having skinned the old substance, or having cast a fine mantle of incorruptibility upon the corrupted and rotting flesh? And what good hope shall we have B if we allow the physicians of the earthen flesh to lead and bear the bodies as they seem, even if they seem to act for the worse, yet grant nothing to Galen, the physician of all souls, who for his kindness toward men has given the body of sin over to death, and provided a soporific drug, so that having scraped away the flux of corruption, he may raise up our nature flowless? Or how does the insane discourse of Manes rage against us, and speak in confusion? As if the same thing is raised up again: C • "This body, and it will decay again, • Having bile, and phlegm, and the resolution of the battle."
NOTES
1574. See Hippocrates, *De hæmorr.*, where he relates how they are cured by cautery or incision; and *De ulcer.*, ch. 15 and following, where he treats of the herbs and powders by which poultices and drugs are prepared for healing wounds.
1577. The *Codex* says, "summoning," and then "fashioning." Pisida states that medicines applied can provide a double effect: either to recall the former flesh, or to attach new flesh to the old, according to the opinion of the ancients, so as to conclude from thence that it will be so much the easier for almighty God to cause the bodies of the dead to rise and, when they have been raised, to adorn them with the vesture of immortality: which is the doctrine of the Apostle, 1 Cor. xv: *For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.*
1584. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem excellently begins his *Catechesis on the Resurrection of the Flesh* thus: "The root of all good work is the hope of the resurrection; for the expectation of the reward strengthens the soul for undertaking good works." This opinion, which is confirmed by the consensus of all the Fathers and doctors, Pisida, not departing from the comparison taken from medicine, so twists, that he proves that one must trust in God more than in a physician.
1390. Rom. vi: *Our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed.*
1394. Manes, who embraced the ravings of all heretics and compounded the worst of all heresies, was called first Cubricus, and then Manes, which name in the Persian language means "dialectical." But since the Greeks had turned the name of Manes into infamy, because in Greek it signifies fury and insanity, his disciples called their master Manichæus, or Mannichæus. See Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, *Catech.* vi. 24, and Saint Augustine, xix, 22, *Contra Faustum*, and Beausobre, *Hist. de Manichée*, I, 1. Therefore, in expressing the force of the name, Pisida called the discourse of Manes immanē, or insane.
1396. Manes admitted the metempsychosis, or the translation of souls from human bodies into the bodies of plants and beasts; but when he observed that the resurrection from the dead is clearly testified in the Scriptures, he did not dare to deny it entirely; but, abusing the testimony of the Apostle, *loc. cit.*, xv, *That flesh and blood cannot possess the kingdom of God*, he asserted the resurrection of the soul alone to glory, which he also restricted to his own disciples only. See Saint Epiphanius, *Hæres.* lxvi, 87. But Pisida alone, so far as I know, produces and refutes the argument of that same impious heretic against the resurrection. Beausobre, indeed, in weaving the history of Manichæism, perhaps too diligent, seems to have been ignorant of this passage. Moreover, the argument of Manes is easily solved by one who denies with Pisida its antecedent. For Manes supposes the cause of death to be the discord of humors. But who does not know that death, apart from the discord of humors, is in the power of Him in whose hand is also life? After the resurrection will be no place for dissolution, nor for corruption, because, as the same Saint Paul says *ibid.*, the body will rise spiritual.
1398. What Pisida intends by the book of Galen *On the Humors* will be clear to the reader: "Humors are bile, blood, phlegm, and the melancholic humor," from which animals are composed, and man.
A Although seeing his own wounds, 1400 The rotting fistula, all the humors, Sharpening themselves as if for an armed fight, Black bile, and yellow-haired [saffron] bile, And phlegm tangled with blood, And all flowing together and being mixed, 1405 Seeing the fight, but not seeing the dissolution. And unwilling to be persuaded even by the bruises, Which, as if from the rotting of the organs, An unrotting skin is raised for them, And a reconciliation of the fissures happens 1410 Because of the fight thought to be among them; Or how can the logically stated word be guarded: "One breathing together and one flowing together of all," If the breathing together becomes a schism of fight? Or how can the liquid be found solidified, 1415 Unless, through the presence of the necessary fight, The heat warms the phlegm of the bile, Or coldness is mixed with heat, Or dryness seizes the moist fight? Therefore, properly, the fight is not a fight; Rather, it is cohesive, or on the contrary 1420 Its nature is separative of things fitted together; Tightening the composition until the bond, It will loosen the ineffable power of the one who tightened it. For as someone wishing to construct a house, 1425 And having fixed a wedge for the spherical roof, Knows only the tightening, and loosens it alone; So he who created the embodied substance, When it is necessary for the house to come to dissolution, 1430 Does not move phlegm and bile toward dissolution, As if being in need of a material assistant; But by ejecting the wedge, the keeper of the soul, As he knows, as he tightened, so he loosens alone. When he wishes to fit the composition together,— 1435 For he wishes to reform the house again, Having suffered a fall from hidden spirits— Even if he takes bile, and phlegm, and spirit,
as if fastening it with a wedge, so that it may no longer be dissolved, He raises up our nature incorruptible. A Yet these things are for the sake of Manes, who has lost his mind. For we know that it was necessary for this mortal skin of ours to be taken up, which is sown indeed buried in corruption, but rises conversely from corruption, incorruptible, as it seemed good to the All-worker. Thus, even if the Fashioner wishes to furnish this body with humors, or to make it more slender, B yet the nature of things that have rotted is incorruptible, and, just like a dead wound, He skins it over and gathers it together. For the Word is sufficient for Him for the incarnation, scrutinizing the earth, and looking at the waves, And gathering the limbs of those who sleep. And even if a fish tears the raw-fleshed meat of a man, and a rustic the fish, And a bear this one, and dogs the beast, And vultures these, and tombs the vultures, And he descends through every nature simply, Being twisted into foreign fluxes; C Yet within he remains of the boundaries.
1454. Raw-fleshed meat. In a similar way Athenagoras, *On the Resurrection*, ch. 5 and 6, says that bodies, even though separated, are to come together among themselves by the wisdom and power of God, whether they have been ignited by fire, or have rotted in water, or have been consumed by beasts or any animals whatsoever, or whether any part has been torn off from the whole body and dissolved beforehand. Consult also Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, ch. 18, 2, and Saint Augustine, *On the City of God*, bk. 22, 20.
1455. Morelius translates as "rustic." Why should a rustic eat a fish? "Rustic" is derived from hunting, which is considered fishing.
A Sealed by the hand of the Creator. And therefore, if someone, with his most lowly Hand outstretched, and with the joints of his five fingers spread, Should take barley, emmer, millet, or wheat, Or a multitude of legumes simply mixed together, He knows how to distinguish and divide them properly, This one from that, and joins the natures, And most easily assembles them genus by genus. How then shall a heart not stone-like fail to understand That the creation is in the hand of the Creator, To run together at our resurrection, B And to gather up, just as another gathers taxes, From here and there the portions of the remains— Arteries, and nerves, flesh, and veins, And the collection of every joint that was hidden, And to bring in the remainders of each one; For they are inscribed even unto a hair; And to carry all the nature that is written down Into the presence of its own Lord; So that it may render to the pressing angels The calculations of the debts and the interest, And the first-fruits of the earthly heart.
NOTES
1461. Ps. iv, 7: *The light of thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us.* ... [It is] II Cor. i, 21-22: *Who hath also sealed us, and given the pledge of the Spirit in our hearts.* 1462. St. Cyril of Jerusalem uses the same example in Catech. xviii, concluding thus: "But if you can distinguish things contained in your own hand, shall God not be able to distinguish and restore things contained in His hand? Consider what is spoken, if he be not an impious [denier]." 1464. "Emmer" (*olyra*) is a seed intermediate between wheat and barley. It is of the same genus as spelt (*zea*), but is somewhat less nutritious; yet it is also made into bread. See Dioscorides, ii, 163. Matthiolus, on the authority of Pliny and Galen, rightly contends that emmer is not to be confused with rye (*secale*). 1469. Ezek. xi, 19: *And I will take away the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them a heart of flesh.* See the interpreters. 1475. Cod. 1126, *hidden* (*kekrummenen*). 1477. Luke xii, 7: *But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered.* See St. Augustine, *De civit. Dei*, xxii, 20. 1480. Matt. xiii, 49: *So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall go out, and shall separate the wicked from among the just.* 1481. St. Basil explains what "interest" (*tokos*) is fully in his Homily on Psalm xiv. Here, however, there is an open allusion to the parable of the talents distributed to the servants, of which he who had received only one, and had hidden it in the earth, was cast into the outer darkness. For it was necessary, the Lord said in Matt. xxv, 27, to have committed the money to the bankers, *and coming, I might have received my own with usury.* Similar [words are found] in Luke xix, 23, which were spoken to signify the final judgment. And thus far Pisida has argued for the resurrection with many arguments of the mind; if you are at leisure, you will find these treated more broadly in the aforementioned Fathers: Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Irenaeus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Tertullian, Augustine, and Ambrose, as well as in Nat. Alexander’s *Hist. eccl.*, cent. 1, dissert. xxvi, and in the *Deliciae eruditorum* of that most illustrious and closely linked friend of mine, John Lami, who, in place of a commentary on the most detailed dissertation of Michael Glycas, has opportunely, and as the matter necessitated, added an appendix in which he not only refutes the errors of the ancient heretics, but likewise utterly subverts the quibbles—or rather, the ravings—of Burnet, a man most notorious among the English, against the resurrection of the body from the dead. One thing remains for me to advise: if anyone wishes to say that all things that Pisida appears to have said against Manes were said against Severus and against Philoponus as favoring Manichaeism, he will certainly not have me as an opponent. For it is evident that the whole force of the Manichaean argument which Pisida attacks is placed in this: that it is obstinately denied that bodies will resurrect in the same form which they formerly possessed. What Philoponus rambled about is similar. Photius, certainly, in cod. xxi, xxii, and xxiii, testified that he had read Philoponus’ book against the resurrection, and his refutation of it; but what the errors of Philoponus were is not clear from Photius. But Timotheus the Presbyter of Constantinople, in *De receptione haereticorum* (apud Cotelerium, *Mon. vet.* tom. iii), explains the matter; for on page 598 he says that there were some Tritheites, followers of Philoponus, who said that the body which we now have will not resurrect incorruptible, but that we shall receive another in its place... [Others] were Tritheites who abominated the book edited by John Philoponus against the resurrection, in which he does away with the resurrection. But the same Timotheus declares this even more clearly later, on page 414, where he exposes the errors of Philoponus: "The aforementioned grammarian John, in his books *To the Greeks*, and in his other writings, added, saying, that these sensible bodies entirely..."
A satisfy fruit, and the barrenness of seed, and the remainder of the scales, and the stability of the weight, and simply every psychic ministry. Thus you habituated yourself to the operations known among us, although you were hidden; for as much as the God-breathed extremity has surpassed us from the higher minds, so much do the middle ones [surpass] them, and the middle ones are more grafted into the all-seeing one, and with the winged extension of speed, the extremity which is nearest to the Divine; for as much as they draw near, they make the distances greater, and by a strange manner of discourse they have additions as subtractions. For if the one who beholds this fire of the earth...
NOTES
John Grammaticus, in his books against the Gentiles and in other of his volumes, introduced these things: that all bodies here exposed to the senses and to view were brought by God from not-being into being, according to matter and form; and that these things became corruptible and are corrupted according to matter and form, and in place of these, other bodies are created by God, superior to these visible ones, incorruptible and eternal; and he understands the consummation, or the passing of the visible world, and the birth of a new world. And he defines the resurrection of the dead as the indissoluble union of rational souls with an incorruptible body. But Conon, and those with him, rejected his writings, having published discourses in which they say that these sensible and visible bodies are not corrupted according to matter, but remain the same and visible for ever, not being corrupted; but they are corrupted only according to form; and again they say that the same matter is reformed, receiving a superior, incorruptible, and eternal form. And they define the resurrection of the dead as the second indissoluble union of this body with the rational soul.
B The grammarian John is shown by the consensus of these things—that there is an indissoluble union of rational souls with a corruptible body—but it has an incorruptible body... live thus yourself. They are illuminated by the knowledge of the God-breathed Scriptures concerning dogmas of the knowledge of God. Panommatos (all-seeing) ... rich-eyed length.
1486. I think it should be read thus. Morellius did not quite happily follow the mind of Pisida in the following verses. These things are to be compared with the Areopagitic writings, *On the Celestial Hierarchy*, chapter 3 and 4, where it is taught how God communicates Himself to creatures, who, as He is, has appeared to no one. There are three hierarchical degrees; namely, those who are purified, those who are illuminated, and those who become perfect. All these, although they are more perspicacious than the rest of men in contemplating divine things, are yet far distant from seeing God as the triple order of angels sees and contemplates Him, which corresponds to the three grades of mystics. C Therefore, the whole opinion of Pisida is this: so they know how to speak of God who have been versed in the Holy Scriptures and in the divine oracles.
1489. He indicates them, I think, who, as Saint Maximus says in the *Scholia* to chapter 5 of *De cœl. hier.*, are illuminated by the knowledge of the God-breathed Scriptures concerning the doctrine of divine knowledge.
1492. "All-eyed" is full, and then "rich-eyed." Pisida designates the various orders of angels, and especially the Cherubim. See above, v. 172.
1494. Cod. 1126. "long-extension" (μακρότης), which reading does not displease, so that it may be an antithesis. D
1498. See above, v. 876, where the same comparison is.
A while standing far off is charmed by the sight, yet he retreats having drawn near to the flame. How is it that, toward that fire of incombustibility, one who is closer, even if he is by nature an angel, does not retreat the more, and stand apart in fear, in the fire-bright and God-hidden gloom, finding both the fire and the flame to be lightless? Hence, as it seems, the nature of the Cherubim, endowed with many eyes, draws nearer, both seeing and closing its eyes in order to see more. For fear has been dreadfully implanted in the creation by that Lucifer who first fell to earth, seeing measurelessly, and suffering the consequence of not seeing at all. B So that nothing is at all relaxed, or removed from the all-ruling and wise oversight of the One who created; but all things are for some useful end, as far as grass, and plants, and beasts, and the voiceless fish of the sea, and the birds sprung from it; and reaching even to the rough stones, is the rapid operation of God. For if a disease is driven away by a stone, and another stone draws iron to itself, and others are flints, which I know not how, when struck within, kindle an external fire. There is also another [stone].
A But who does not see, that there is nothing anywhere so vile and abject, which does not consist in being made for some reason, and which does not depend upon the inspection and vigilance of the most wise Creator, which extends broadly to all things? And likewise that all things are destined for some useful end, with herbs and plants, and beasts, and mute marine fish, and birds born of the sea, all gathered and comprehended together? B Furthermore, that the workmanship of God, by which He made small things so neatly and so subtly, has reached even to the hard stones? For there is a certain stone by which a disease is repelled, and another which attracts iron; and there are others which are flints, which C I know not how, when struck within, kindle a fire placed without. There is also another D [note: content of note 1518 continues discussing the origin of fish and birds according to Genesis and the false theories thereof]. 1521 Concerning the nature and properties of stones, there are countless writers: to omit the profane, I will name Solomon, whom Glycas states in his *Annals* (part II, p. 183) to have written a book *On the nature and virtues of gems*, and Suidas testifies in *Ezekias* that the same most wise king composed a book *On remedies*. See the *Codex pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti* compiled by Johann Albert Fabricius. Famous is the treatise of Isidore of Seville, *On stones and metals*, which is the sixteenth book of his *Etymologies*; and no less praised is the charming poem of Marbod of Rennes, *On gems*. But we owe it to a man of most upright...
and learned character, Peter Francis Foggini, custodian of the Vatican Library, for his study and diligence in finally bringing to light the beautifully illustrated *Rational Book on Gems* by Saint Epiphanius, in which that holy bishop of Salamis narrates the properties of individual gems. However, it is established that Pisida followed Theophrastus in his *On Stones*, and especially Galen, who in his ninth book, *On the Faculties of Simple Medicines*, recounts and weighs the powers of stones against a medical standard. Nevertheless, one should consult Pliny, who explains the virtues of plants and stones in various places. B
1522. Regarding the magnet, which the ancients also called *sideritis* because it attracts iron, and the Heraclean stone, see Pliny, xxxvi, 25. Codex 1126, "And another draws out iron."
1523. *Pyrites* denotes the common pyrite, so called by the Greeks because it gives off sparks when struck. Pliny, ibid., 30; Aldrovandi, *Mus. metall.*, p. 570. Virgil expressed the nature of the stone, as Pisida does, in *Aeneid* vi, 6: "Part seek the seeds of flame / Hidden within the veins of flint."
1525. *Lapis ceraunius* (thunderstone), which was also called *brontia* and *ombria*. See Pliny xxxvii, 55, and Aldrovandi, *Mus. metall.*, p. 607. Marbod of Rennes sang thus of this stone, section 50: "For in those places which are known to be struck by lightning, That stone is believed to be found; Whence it is called *ceraunios* in Greek speech. For what we call lightning the Greeks called *keraunon*. He who carries this chaste stone shall not be struck by lightning, Nor shall the house or fields where that stone is present. For all the ancients have testified that the *ceraunia* is effective against lightning."
1526. It is not sufficiently clear to me what *pyrnothon*, "spurious fire," is. Will you say that Pisida denotes that fire which, as the habit of foolish men suggests, wanders here and there through the air without any law, and is called *fatuus* (will-o'-the-wisp), or does he rather denote conflagrations, as if there were no other natural fire than that which nature, not art, has excited? A passage of Solinus, ch. 50, describing an Ethiopian mountain, brings light: "Rising from the southern part... it hangs over the sea, hot with natural fire through eternity, and constantly glowing with restless flames." C
1531. There are various kinds of *boli* (clays). Pisida understands the Armenian earth, which Galen highly commends, *On the Faculties of Simple Medicines*, ix, 1, p. 252: "Against dysenteries, and fluxes of the stomach, and spitting of blood, and catarrhs... it is most suitable."
1532. *Pēlos*, mud, is by Galen's definition, ibid., p. 251, a medicinal earth which, when irrigated with water, easily dissolves into mud. Pisida understands the Samian and Lemnian earth, regarding which the same Galen, ibid., p. 249, says: "They are beneficial for dysenteric ulcerations." On mud, see Isidore, *Etymologies* xvi, 4.
1533. Perhaps for *pāsma* one should read *pauō*, I cease, or I cause to cease. Now *chortos*, if we are not mistaken, is fenugreek, which, as Pliny says, xxiv, 120, they call *telis*, others *carphos*, others *buceras*, others *aegoceras*. Dioscorides, ii, 124, and Pliny agree in praising the virtue of this herb for calming uterine pains. Galen treats this *peri tēleōs* (on fenugreek) in the place cited, p. 235.
1534. I think the root of agaric is praised, regarding which Galen, ibid., p. 150, says it clears away visceral obstructions. However, he says the juice called Cyrenaic, Median, and Syrian is *kat' oxochēn* (by preeminence), ibid., p. 215.
1535. Regarding cedar and cedar-oil, which is cedar resin, Galen, ibid., p. 150, and Pliny, xxix, [say] more, that they remove bodily scabies and itching when mixed with oil and cedar resin.
1537. Morellius was deceived by connecting the preposition *hyper* to the verb. I think Pisida says *absinthian* so that he might denote the juice of wormwood; just as we have recently seen that *cedria* is the humor of the cedar. D
1538. Galen, ibid., p. 163: "Bramble... and the leaves, and the shoots, and the fruit, and the root participate in an astringent quality."
1539. *apoikilous* [to be supplemented with] *akesmous*, remedies; these are the simple medicinal remedies of Hippocrates [according to] Galen.
1541. Galen, ibid., p. 152, relates what are the properties of the common, white, and Egyptian thorn.
For those suffering from blindness due to the cold, Galen’s smoke becomes an unexpected remedy. The torpedo fish makes the sense organs numb; for there is also a benefit in numbness when needed. The fat of a seal extinguishes the inflammation of swellings, just as dew does for kilns. And the soot of burnt seahorses tightens the quivering hairs, preventing them from falling out. The stingray stays the tremors of the teeth, like a skilled weigh-master at the balance, A Inserting its sting into the pains. And the simple eating of the parrotfish checks the flux of our own intestines. And the potion of the juice of rock-dwelling poppy heads, when desired, becomes a vehicle for a bound stomach. It reaches consumption and chilblains, and the stings of scorpions, and cools the pains. It helps those bitten by mad dogs, and it scrapes away cancers, with the crab coming from the deep of the sea; it is also cunning in the hunting of oysters. B
NOTES
1542 Galen ibid. pp. 255 and 264: *Tephra* (ashes), the remains of burnt wood, are called thus. *Chous* is said by Pisida of all powdery substances with which apothecaries compound their *trochisci* or pastilles. Regarding *triches* (hairs) from burnt matter, see Galen, ibid. p. 308. 1544 Dioscorides, IV, 110: *Kapnos* is a shrubby plant... its juice is pungent, sharp-sighted, and brings on tears; whence it also drew its name. Some have written that the creature living in the sea altogether, when burnt, is *alopekiaias*... the sting of the stingray... but the drinking of the juice of poppy heads, so that it may move the bowels gently downward, being boiled and eaten with broth. For consumption... with boiled honey it relieves cracks in the feet and in the anus, and chilblains, and cancers. Of the *okimon* (basil), and when applied they kill scorpions; it reaches the stings, it breaks the stings. The ashes of crabs... C drunk with wine helps those bitten by mad dogs, and the smoke it was putting within, it placed a stone.
1545 Galen, ibid. p. 344, boasts that he was the first to apply a live torpedo to one suffering from a headache, and that it went well for him. Aristotle (*Hist. anim.* IX, 37), Pliny (IX, 67), and elsewhere, as well as Aelian (IX, 14, who also [wrote] I, 36), tell marvelous things about this little fish's power to induce numbness in the limbs—the same as Pisida, but certainly expressed with less elegance.
1547 Regarding the fat and suet of various animals, see Galen, *loc. cit.*, p. 299; but there is nothing there about the seal, whose coagulum alone he praises (p. 285) from Dioscorides, Book I, 18, *Parab.* I suppose Pisida included the fat of the seal, which is of the cetacean fish genus, with whatever fat he was discussing.
1549 Galen, *ibid.* p. 342: *Ton hippokampon, to holon caushen*—the hippocampus, that marine animal, if you burn it whole, is said by some to be useful for *alopecias* (baldness), which Galen transcribed from Dioscorides (II, 3) as did Pliny (XXXII, 13). See Aelian (XIV, 20) on the hippocampus.
1551 Regarding the *turtur marina* (marine turtle), which is the *pastinaca* (stingray) in Latin, Dioscorides (II, 22) tells the same thing: *Trygonos thalassias to kentron... odontas ponountas praunet* (the sting of the marine turtle calms aching teeth). See Aldrovandi, p. 424.
Cod. 1126, *entitheisa kentron* is a certain bony, sharp, double-edged sting which the *pastinaca* carries on the upper and middle part of its tail. It is called by various authors a spine, a *spiculum*, a dart, a bony needle, or a radius. Pliny (XXXII, 26) relates that it is used thus: "The *pastinaca* is used to scarify the gums, and it is most useful in pain. It is ground up, and when applied with white hellebore, it extracts teeth without trouble."
Of the *scari*, which was so highly valued among the Romans, you have the description in Aldrovandi, *De pisc.* p. 3. Galen and Aelian praise the gall of the *scarus*. Pisida commends the viscera *kath' holon*, agreeing almost with Martial, who says: "This *scarus*, which comes fat from the sea waves, Is good for its innards, the rest tastes common."
1556 Cod. [1126]: *et deinde schema*. No one will doubt taking either reading. You should see the differences in the *gobii* (gudgeons) in Aldrovandi, p. 95. Pisida clearly shows he is dealing with a rock-dwelling species, calling them *petrostegous*. Dioscorides (II, 32) says the *gobius* should be boiled in a pig's belly, so that it may move the bowels without disturbance.
1558 The ancients taught, and we experience daily, that crabs, both marine and freshwater, are useful for very many diseases. Dioscorides (II, 12) attributes greater power to the freshwater ones than to the marine; but Pisida, on the contrary, followed the authority of Dioscorides. For as far as consumption is concerned, he says: *phthisikous ouphelousi* (they benefit the consumptive), boiled crabs and taken from their own broth, are useful for those with consumption, as Pliny (XXXII, 39) translates. D As for chilblains and cancers, he says thus: *Syn meliti...* (With honey when boiled, it soothes cracks of the feet and the seat, chilblains and cancers). In the same way Pliny, *ibid.* "When applied with basil, it kills scorpions; which is also in Pliny, *ibid.* 19." However, it should be noted that the codex has [text missing] for [text missing]. As to what finally pertains to those seized with madness from the bite of dogs, it says thus: *lyssodēktous enargōs* (clearly for those bitten by mad dogs), the ashes of crabs... drunk with wine, it evidently helps those bitten by a mad dog: almost the same words are in Pliny, *ibid.*
1562 Oppian (*Halieut.* II, 174) cleverly describes the cunning of crabs in hunting oysters.
A for it throws sand into them when gaping, It restrains the valves of the two-leaved shell from closing; And the gates being opened, the thief of the surf Drags out the hidden food. But the lung-fish, breathing into the surf, Nothing resembling fish, A shapeless image, a vision hard to discern, Soulless—not quickened—but merely at random Seeming to spread itself out and to gather The stubborn contractions of its feet, As nothing else, being broken, it turns away. And the fat of a lion, as they say, Stretches out nerves convulsed by the violence of restraint. The blood of a goat becomes a ransom for a malady, And the horned beetles fear The burning fire of the quartan tremor. And by the sooty dust of the gadflies, The disease of the gadfly is banished. For nature does not spare the homonymous syllable, Holding fast to the zeal of the work. And there are snails of land and sea, Small, the benefactors of the greatest afflictions.
Secretly it approaches, and places a pebble in the middle Of the oyster, and then having roasted it, it feasts On the dear meal: but the other, though it may desire to, Lacks the strength to press its twin scales together; But by necessity it departs, that it may die, and sate the hunter.
B What if the fat of a lion, as they say, extends nerves violently convulsed, and goat’s blood frees from a bad affection, and the burning fire of the quartan fever shrinks from the horns of beetles in a certain way, and the soot of myopes—that is, gadflies—reduced to a powder, exterminates the diseases of the myopes, that is, the dim-sighted? For nature does not refuse commonalities of voice, running to the emulation of the work. There are also two kinds of snails: for some are terrestrial, others marine; small indeed.
C 1576. Thousands of remedies from buck’s blood are demonstrated, which Aldrovandi gathered from all authors, *De Quadr.*, p. 699. Pliny, XXVIII, 58 and 68, reports that buck’s blood gives aid to the dysenteric and dropsical. Pisida, I think, alluded to these affections when he said with a mystical meaning that blood becomes the price of the disease.
1577. Pliny, XXX, 8: In quartans... the Magi bind on another beetle, which has reflexed horns. These are the beetles that the same Pliny, *ibid.* 12, calls bulls: terrestrial beetles similar to the castor-bean are called bulls, to which the name "little horns" was given. Hence it is clear why they are named *kerastai* by Pisida.
1579. There are innumerable remedies which Dioscorides, in *Parab.* I, and Galen, *De composit. medic. sec. locos*, IV, hand down to be prepared for affected eyes from burnt ones. What wonder if Pisida also ranks beetles with the rest?
1581. An Oedipus will understand Morelli's version. Pisida, playing on the word *myopes*, by which gadflies and the dim-sighted are designated, says that nature, which follows the precepts and laws of God, does not abhor this homonymy of the name. Aldrovandi, *De insectis*, p. 375, rightly says it is an asilus and a tabanus: but he decides that it should not be written wrongly—because from the fly, and he says he seeks. For although Aelian, *Hist. anim.* VI, 37, says the tabanus is similar to a dog-fly, nevertheless, the books are not to be corrected, as Aldrovandi opines, against the faith of all codices: especially since it is derived from *myō*, "I close my eyes," and this is more probable for the name. In the following verse, the codex reads *sygkratoumenē*, which pleases.
1583. The use of snails in medicine is various. See Dioscorides, II, 11; Galen, *De simpl.*, p. 310; and Aldrovandi, *De exang.*, p. 382. Let us follow Pliny. *Alphous anairei*, ash of snails with honey removes blemishes from the face, XXX, 9. *Oidēma gastros*, snails finely shredded and smeared with honey soften a tumor of the groin, XXX, 22. Snails... are said to take away pains of the feet and joints, *ibid.* 23. *Plēgas neurōn*, snails crushed with myrrh and frankincense are said to heal severed nerves, XXX, 39. D *Zophōseis ommatōn*, snails...
A If you reduce the shell-shucks to ash, you will remove leprous spots; and if you mix them with honey, tempering the dry with the wet as an ash, you will stop the swelling of the belly and the fluxes of the feet, and the lacerations of the nerves and the dimness of the eyes, and the hemorrhaging before the nostrils. And, having wondered, you will hymn the divine power, having placed a barrier against ten thousand diseases. But if you desire to say whence and how these things come to be, you will draw from an endless depth. For also of the necessary passages, as they say, the mucus checks the involuntary discharges; and the tongue of a wolf, when applied to infants, B loosens the locks of a speechless tongue. The cicada, when roasted, carves away the corns on the feet—a wonderful artisan in cutting stones—and frees one from the torments of the disease. And cold poison has extinguished a hot ailment; and by a warm juice, a cold pain has yielded. And viper’s flesh is a dose acting as an antidote, and it becomes a binding agent for flesh that is wasting away; for it stops the flow and scrapes away the ichor, and turns the flowing images into a form of beauty, shaping the faces of deformity. And some even say that, when a horrid disease has entered as a plague with a trembling heat, if anyone—when the sick person is breathing his final fiery breath—
A just as the scorpion inserts its sting secretly into the body, as if for a battle joined of venom against venom, it blunts and darkens the force of the disease, through that marvelous mixture, whereby the greatest cold is opposed to the greatest heat, and it weakens and deadens it?
It is no longer allowed to say that after those things have been considered, they are of no value; since all things are in reality beautiful and most perfectly fashioned. For who, seeing a cluster of grapes, does not marvel at Him who infused a warm moisture into the wood? And how the leaves wrap around the berries, ready for shedding, so that neither does the dart of the rain strike that which is tender within them, nor does the fiery warmth of the sun burn and dry up their juices? Who, having split the leathery rind of a pomegranate elegantly, and having known the position of the humid coals—and how a partition stands in the middle for each part set together, and divides the boundaries—is not amazed?
So, indeed, divine grace has prepared all things for a certain utility, and has arranged them so aptly and conveniently according to a held reason, that it has brought in nothing that is maimed, nothing that is redundant, not even excluding leaves, hairs, and tears, nor mud, smoke, and dung itself: although some things lie hidden because they are unknown, while others have their use and utility discovered and detected: whence it is no longer permitted to say that any things are base, but that all are elegant and well-fashioned. For he who looks at a cluster of the vine, B who is not struck with awe at Him who gave a warm moisture to the wood? And how do the leaves surround the grapes, ready for the pouring, so that the weapon of the rain might not strike the porous part, or the fiery heat of the sun, having scorched it, drain the juices? Who, having split the skin of a pomegranate well, and having known the position of the humid coals, and how in each place set together an enclosure stands in the middle, and divides the boundaries, C and keeps them within their own limits, with a flame-colored membrane straining thin strings, so that the soft juices are not burdened, or are not so compressed by force...?
NOTES
...the inner part of a man was burning as it was consumed, the stomach was ablaze with flame as if with furnaces inside... in the hands, nerves were being pulled, and the limbs trembled, and cold did not hesitate to creep from the feet little by little.
1611. The manuscript has scorpio for which we have received the reading. Concerning the sting of the scorpion, see Aldrovandi, page 578. 1616. What he had proposed above, v. 1512, against the Epicureans and Manichaeans, he here concludes more aptly and firmly. 1617. Agogimon here means that which confers benefit, which is conducive to health. But Galen, IX, De simpl. facult. page 273, ranks "agogima" among superstitious remedies, such as love potions, those inducing dreams, etc., of which he himself did not wish to make trial. 1618. In the same manner exactly, St. Basil, IX, 5, when he had considered the diverse properties of animals, concludes: So true is that opinion, that it is impossible for anything that is either redundant or deficient to be found in created things. 1619. Leaves. Dioscorides and Galen generally commend the leaves of trees and plants in the composition of medicines. Hairs, see above, v. 1512. Tears are gums: thus Pliny, praising the balsam tree, XII, 54, says: The chief virtue is in the tears, the second in the seed, the third in the bark, the least in the wood. Mud, see above, v. 1532. Smoke, above, v. 1544. Dung, regarding animal dung, Galen says more, De simpl. page ..., where he also reports something curious about human dung, although he himself, page 274, had attacked Xenocrates because he had handed down many things about abominable matters of this kind. 1621. This was the opinion of the Stoics, according to Lactantius, who, treating this very argument most eloquently in his book *De ira Dei*, chap. 13, introduces the Academics asking against the Stoics thus: Why, if God made all things for the sake of men, are many things even contrary, hostile, and pestilential to us also found? Which the Stoics, not regarding the truth, refuted most ineptly. For they say that there are many things among living things, and in the number of animals, whose utility lies hidden, but is found in the passage of time: just as necessity and use have already discovered many things unknown in previous centuries. Lactantius, refuting the Stoics, seems to solve the difficulty for himself better if he says that God proposed both good and evil to man, because He gave him wisdom, the whole reason of which is placed in discerning evils from goods. Pisida, on the contrary, favors the Stoics at the same time; and religiously follows Galen, who in his preface to the books *De simpl. medic. facult.* states that all things are to be considered D and that uniquely, those things which have been founded fill a certain proper reason in creation. Whence he concludes in the same place, that none of those things is in vain, none is brought into the light uselessly; and a little later, nor is anything done by chance; all things proceed from a certain ineffable wisdom.
1625. See a similar description of the vine in the praised Basil, homily 5, n. 8. The whole of book XIV of Pliny is concerning vines and wines. 1631. Concerning the pomegranate, or garnet, the same Pliny, XIII, 34, but Joannes Bodæus a Stapel should be especially consulted, Comment. on book VI of Theophrastus, page 590 et seqq. 1672. He wittily calls the grains or berries of the pomegranate "coals" (anthrakas), because they resemble so many carbuncles. 1634. The manuscript changes: "phragmos" is the inner reddish membrane, by which the grains themselves are covered with wondrous art, and are distinguished; he calls it "phlogodes," [flame-like] because it partakes of the color of the grains.
1635 A membrane like flame, extending thin fibers, Lest the looseness of the pores be made heavy, And it suffer pressure by the binding of the knot, And thence the moisture of the autumn fruit fall out, And one grain, flowing into another, rot; 1640 Has not he who considered the cause beyond the mind, Before eating the fruit, hymned the Maker of all? For the mind, straightway, as if a natural runner, Leaving the wonder, runs toward the Cause. Who, having planted "congealed milk" in the deep, 1645 Reared the white-bound pearls? Whence does the nature of emeralds grow warm In every season, for it is not in spring alone? Who has placed a flower in the sapphire stone, If no flower is planted in a stone? 1650 Whence is the fire-bright dye of the carbuncles, If every stone is congealed by cold? Who does these things, and sustains them, and turns them, If not your will and your power, O Seer of all, as it seems good to you, and as you will? 1655 For your power, having extended into the infinite, Shines, covers, and proceeds, and remains.
A By the infinite power and will of God, all things have come to be, and all things that have been made are preserved, each distinctly kept according to its own reasons, by Him who is by nature the infinitely powerful God and Maker of all; [they are preserved] through His divine will, by which He made all things and moves them, as they are guided by their own natural laws, while He remains immobile; for the infinite in no way or reason admits of motion, having nowhere and nothing around which to be moved; for change in that which is by nature infinite, and which is not born to be moved, is [what we call] motion.
By stasis running, and by motion fixed, And by giving form to formless substances, Thou didst mystically fashion matter devoid of matter. A And Thou, withdrawn from the whole, 1660 Art super-perfect; for Thou hast no beginning; Thou didst stand apart from the end, and didst stand away from the middle, Having stepped outside the three; and while existing Within the whole, Thou remainest outside the whole; Manifest whilst unmanifest; having no boundaries, 1665 But being the definition of the defining boundaries. Ruling without beginning, not measured by time, But by a timeless impulse making the things of time. And as a skillful master of the mind, Trained to analyze every action, 1670
Thou seest every strange noun and verb, And the subtle article, and the hidden participle, And having mastered every pronoun, And having given fitting measures to every preposition, Thou turnest the whole world into an adverb; 1675 If Thy power did not ineffably oversee, Thou wouldst cast a connective conjunction for all things; And always showing technical extensions, Thou makest all things according to Thy decree; Future, present, imperfect, perfect, 1680 Together with . . . . . . . . along with Aorist, pluperfect; distributing moods, Indicative, infinitive, optative more; And having inserted these into the ineffable art
Having fashioned all things with an imperative word, A Thou createst for thyself the creation in the subjunctive mood. Being all-formed, yet formless; having no stance, No trace, no movement, no known base; For thou art the movement of all, and the base of all. 1690 Simple, participable, first, last, middle, Lofty, wide, extensionless, deep, great; Yet thou art none of these, but I will fix them Within the inaccessible boundaries of thy mystical power. Thou art everywhere, and yet nowhere, and again: Thou art both all things and one; for these must be joined together, Lest the One, being isolated, be subjected to forms perceived by sense; But by the composition (of "all things") we signify His incomprehensible nature. 1700 Let us once again approve this precisely, Lest "all things" should foster a base suspicion, And we provide a sequence to the flowing composition.
Thou, being God, art everywhere; But there is added to thee the "nowhere" by way of counter-composition, Lest, being divided by split extension, The "nowhere" might incline toward non-existence, And the "everywhere" might be ill-suited to those things which are divided. 1705 But with counter-nails—so to speak—with words, We shall join "all things" and "one," and "nowhere" again, Squeezing them together with the counter-resonance of "everywhere," And we shall establish the firm foundation of dogmas. For even if the depth of the argument deepens for thee, Thou, being lifted to the height, dost not wish to be revealed; 1710 Even if minds should be lifted to the topmost height, Thou turnest them back to the utmost depth, So that neither can length fly over thy depth, Nor can thy width run to the end of its height, But into infinite things the diffusion of the infinite Is poured out, and is cut short by thy extending reach.
A If it be right even to speak of things not yet brought to creation, that they are enkindled by thy prompt intent. For thou art present, and by being present thou departest; thou remainest and yet thou fleest; and like a thin shadow, in the very act of being grasped, thou slippest away from the hands. Even so now, desiring in the insatiable eagerness of my longing to learn and to harvest by the Word the vineyard of thy wise works, I know not what cluster to snatch and take. For with a varied and wise contemplation I divide my mind, and I am constricted, and while wishing to grasp the first things, I am stolen away by the last, and I swim against uncontrollable surges, as those who sail in the deep of the sea: the more the breadth of the abyss appears, the more they suffer constriction in their heart. For even if I run through the power of the lightning, and rise up on wings, and pass through the natures, and rise up further still, and cleave the ether, and open the keys, as if I were a second Peter, and not be constricted by such an expanse, having passed over the heavens, shall I reach the water? Perhaps I shall join abyss to abyss, and beginning to end, seeing no end at all; then, looking out into the extreme depth, and being clouded over at the chasm of the abyss, I suffer vertigo, and I am shaken, and again I curl up and return beneath to the earth. For I am nothing but earthen soot, and sluggish mud, and dust tending downward. Yet whither am I winged? What ether shall I cleave? Or whither proceeding, and running through the heaven, shall I rise up to the fifth sphere of the Stagirite? Or to what other again, or to what gate B shall I arrive?
Even those things which are not yet created feel thy vicinity, and are refreshed by the accession of thy divinity. For thou art present, and the more thou art near, the more thou art far; and as thou remainest, thou fleest; and like a light shadow, when one sets out to grasp thee, thou slippest from the hands. So indeed, while I most vehemently desire to know thee, and strive to harvest with the aid of the Word the vineyard of the things wisely created by thee, I know not what bunch I should pluck before others. For such is the variety and wisdom of the things which are exhibited to be viewed, that my spirit, distracted into very many parts, fails entirely: for when I attempt to attain the first things, I am drawn back from the last, and I am carried hither and thither, agitated among indomitable waves; and I feel that happening to me which is wont to happen to those sailing on the deep, to whom the more the vastness of the sea appears spread out before their eyes, the more their hearts C are constricted within them by fear. For although I might run like swift lightning, and be lifted up like a bird, and, raised still higher beyond the earth, cleave the ether, and becoming another Peter, unlock with keys what is barred, and with such long-extended course, unwearied, mount the very heavens, and pass beyond the waters; it will perhaps befall me to, as it were, join abyss to abyss, and the beginning to the end, seeing no end at all: but when, bowing my head, I ponder into the profound whirlpool, and, terrified by the gaping of such a chasm, and turned around by vertigo, I fall from hope, I am wretchedly troubled in mind, and, as is fitting, since I am but slime, I fall headlong back to the earth. For in truth I am nothing else but a certain soot of an earthly mass, and soft mud, and ashes tending downward. But whither shall I fly? What ether shall I attempt to cleave? Or how, running through the void of heaven, shall I be raised aloft as far as the fifth sphere of the Stagirite? And then from this to another, and likewise to another D.
Searching, I shall advance; but groping, I shall turn back. If I survey the depth of this nether earth, and weave a thousand depths into that depth, and grasp the conclusion of that infinity, and learn of my earth, my mother, where she has drawn in her long-extended feet; then, approaching the higher gates, I shall close the door that opens and shuts. For it opens, and is further narrowed; it unfolds, and is yet more constricted; it slackens its bolts, and frightens off those approaching, standing opposed to those who dare to burst in. A But O, architect of such wonders! Who for us, your unruly servants, gave up your own Son, the co-eternal Word, as a ransom to the enemies—your beloved Son; so that we, having existence like worms buried in the earth, our homes in the tomb (for the earth was to us, as it is to them, everything—sustenance, food, lodging, and the grave of life), might not be dragged down again into darkness, but [might be brought] to a resurrection and a new creation. Having come, may He raise up the fallen image, wipe away the webs of the passions, and shake off all the dust with a linen cloth; and having wiped away all the filth with a sponge, may He spiritualize the dust that weighs down upon the earth. From Him the Spirit of all truth, having been manifested, is known by the creation to be holy; He is the pledge of the inheritance above, B the unceasing flow of good gifts, the life-giving power of holiness, the primordial end of adoption, that which divides...
and distributes, as it wills, the extensions of divine-working gifts; the chrism and grace of the initiated, the lethal remedy for sin, the vital constitution of immortality, the burning light, the cooling flame, the vehicle of eternal joy, the most luminous brilliance of the prophets, A the fire-tongued mouth of the apostles, the unguent of the struggle for the martyrs, the companion and co-running radiance of the Father-shining sovereignty of the Word, the nuptial seal of the strange birth. The mystical key of the God-receiving gate, through which the Word, having entered in incorporeal, went forth in the flesh, leaving that gate—just as He found it—sealed. Through whom the phalanx of demons is driven away, and the watery mass of the sea is traversed on foot. B
NOTES
1786. *Ibid.*: You have received the Spirit of adoption, in whom we cry: Abba, Father. 1787. 1 Cor. XII, 11: But all these things worketh one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. 1789. II Cor. I, 21: But he that confirmeth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God. 1790. Matt. XXVIII, 19: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. For they are indeed baptized: and in baptism the Holy Spirit is anointed, or poured out, and the image of the Son of God is imprinted in us. 1791. Cod. 1126 has *systalma*. John XX: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. For I think the Pisidian looked to this place. We translate *pharmacum* and *constitutio*, because we thought the poet spoke metaphorically from Galen, in whom, in his book *De prænotione ex pulsibus*, irregularity of the pulse seems to be the same as in the Pisidian, "the lethal constitution of sin": *interitus peccati* [destruction of sin]; while *syntagma* is the best constitution of each thing; thus the symmetry of the bones is called *syntagma* by the same Galen in *De ossibus*. With one word, therefore, *syntagma* in this place is the same as *systole* and *syntaxis*. 1794. 1 Thess. I, 6: Receiving the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost. 1795. John VIII, 56: Your father Abraham rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it, and was glad. 1796. Acts II, 3: And there appeared to them parted tongues, as it were fire. 1797. *Aleimma*, oil, with which athletes were anointed: whence the Holy Spirit among the Fathers is rightly called, everywhere, the oil and anointing of the martyrs, who are the athletes of Christ. Pisides had just called the *same* Holy Spirit *myron*, the ointment of all things, and the chrism of the initiated, so that by the variety of terms he might denote the manifold power of the same effect: for it is the Spirit who by His power vivifies, sanctifies, and confirms us. 1798. Cod. 1126, *synchronon*. Morellius interpreted the mind of the Pisidian less happily, nor can we boast that we have performed this better. Truly, if we are not mistaken, the poet has expressed quite openly, although in a somewhat tortuous style of speech, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son: whence it is surprising that neither Cardinal Bessarion, nor Arcudius, and—what is more—not even Leo Allatius himself, who collected Greek testimonies concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit with such zeal in his most laudable work entitled *Græcia orthodoxa*, noticed this passage of the Pisidian. One must surely admit that the word is used to signify such a great matter as is not usual among other Greeks; but no one fails to see that this was done by reason or the necessity of preserving the meter; C although everyone easily understands that the thing itself is expressed. For the poet said *synetrechein* [to run with] to demonstrate that the Holy Spirit is equal to the Father, but he subjoined *synechtrechein* [to run along with] to declare at the same time the procession from the Father and his co-existence. Wherefore we do not hesitate to affirm that *synechtrechein*, "to run along with," has the same force in the Pisidian as have the verbs *cedere, progredi, profundi, elucere, exsilire* [to yield, to come forth, to be poured out, to shine forth, to leap forth], and other similar ones in other Greek writers speaking of the Holy Spirit. D Moreover, when the Pisidian subjoins that the Holy Spirit is the radiance of the divinity of the Father, and couples the divinity of the Word to the divinity of the Father, he signifies, albeit complexly, yet evidently, the procession of the same Holy Spirit from the Son, as it seems to us at least. *Thearchia* [Divine Sovereignty], *thearchikos* [pertaining to Divine Sovereignty], are terms which Dionysius used, *De cælesti hierarchia*, c. 1 and 2, to signify the supreme divinity. 1800. Matt. I, 18: She was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Saint John Damascene in his hymn on the Theogony, edited by Mich. Le-Quien, vol. 1, p. 674, sang thus:
Born from the root of Jesse, O Virgin, You passed the boundaries of mortal substance, Having brought forth the Word of the Father before the ages, As He himself was pleased, the sealed Womb to traverse with miraculous emptiness.
And the looseness of the flow is relaxed, He is not weighed down by the earthly burden. And loaves, thousands-fold, well up in supply, Flowing forth from five-numbered fragments. And water is wrought by miracle into nectar at the wedding, Wine ready-made from hidden clusters; And it is renewed in taste, in scent, in nature, And it changed three bounds from one Word, By whom, having been perfected, even a tax-collector, if he wills, Becomes an evangelist, a scribe of God. A harlot is baptized in streams of tears, Showing how it is possible, without danger, To partake of a second washing out of necessity. By whom the terrible passions are brought into servitude, And the bitter hiss of leprosy is banished; And the lame man tightens his jointless connections; Loose contraction is stretched out; And the long-suffering, painful infirmity is contracted; And the bloody fountain is dried up, The slaughterous channel, blocked by a garment's hem; And dust gives sight to the blind, Revering the spittle of the Creator; And the dead man, beyond hope, becomes whole, Being a poor rich man, and a slaughtered slayer; For he withers, vomiting up the dead Whom he had held, whom he squeezed, folding them down In his own soul-destroying embraces; Until your offspring, the life-giving one, The Father’s light, the radiance before the sun, The new babe of the ancient days, Killed him, instead of a spear, by the wood. But O architect of such wonders! A B C D
A You who shut the gates on high according to Your will, and open them again when it is necessary, whenever it stands ready and seems beneficial to You, now also, being present, open the gates below. For we call this city, which You have built up like a fortress, the gate of the inhabitants of the world. And grant that he who has received power from You, the liberator of the world, the pursuer of Persia—or rather, he who has saved even Persia—may rule over the whole place under the sun. And show the earth mirroring heaven, with one sun and one ruler over those below; for it is fitting that he who has appeared as the slayer of the Persian world should become a ruler of the world. Make the sweat of his toils for him a fount of purification and a robe of incorruptibility. Increase for him the power of Your fear; for thus shall he hold faithful trophies of victory, accounted worthy of a second victory over his enemies, as one who has set aflame the Barbarians who are not Your servants. Root firmly for him the burgeoning branches, for living fruit of worldly fruitfulness. Make them images of the Father; for thus for them there shall be a double power. Sharpen for them the swords against the Barbarians, when the swords are wielded barbarously against us. Stretch out for them their minds in order to save them; contract for them all opposing insolence. Widen for them the gates towards peace; narrow for them crushing cares.
The patriarch cries and says these things, even though he is faint-voiced from fasting, and though not speaking, he sounded loudly within. Having placed his tongue into the fire of his heart, he hid it, and he is equipped with speech all the more; and he cries out in silence, like the throat of Moses. B C D
A And he irrigates the earth, and rains through his eyes, and showers heavily with the flow of tears. We knew him, even if he thought he was hidden; for he was manifest, casting his gaze downwards, and extending all his thoughts on high. But, O killer of the barbarian passions, for you slaughter them with the sword of the Word; show our wall to be fortified; for the cities have found their children to be a wall. Build up battlements for them out of stones, having cast out Christ as the corner-stone. Bind for them incorruptible pearls, created from tears, not from shells. Speak for them to God daily; for the darkness of night does not rise for us. Sharpen them with mystical javelins; fix for them cross-shaped images; stretch the bows with the tension of fingers; B fletch for them a psalm-driven arrow; make for them a sling out of sighing; forge for them sharpened swords. Having snatched the fire from the intellectual tongs, using the Spirit of God for bellows, bend the neck for them to God, and all Persia bends back its feet; bow for them your knees before the dais, and they shall all utterly trample the barbarians. Bow your back down to the earth, and the entire world is immediately raised. For so shall the torrents of evils, which flow into us from sin, be blocked; and we all, having gained peace, shall fly beyond the dense shadows of the earth, and with one voice the mouth of all shall cry out: How the Creator and wise artificer of the God of all creatures has magnified the work!
NOTES
1877. The codex has *niphai*, and in the following verse *kan dokoi*. 1886. The same codex: *embalon*. Eph. ii, 20: *Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone*. 1890. The same codex: *sophos*, so that it refers to Sergius. For often in Pisida [it is found] for you. 1892. The same codex: better *aspidas*. 1896. The same codex: better *ekonemena*. ...[Note: glosses omitted]... Our annotations on the *Hexaëmeron* will be appropriately closed by the ninety-first epigram of Saint Prosper, in which the whole doctrine concerning the making of the world, as Pisida set it forth, is contained: The secret causes of divine works to know, Is not for human genius to bestow. Yet he who knows that God wills much to hide, Observes the hidden things with faith as guide, Whereby the mind, in faith imbued, learns all, And through the look of works perceives the Call Of the Artificer, giving things their frame, Their place, their time, their motion, and their name, By measure, number, weight. Let no vain care To probe the secret depths with toil despair, To whom is given in Christ to know and all things share.FR. MORELLI SCHOLIA ON THE HEXAËMERON
Verse 52. One may read: "But many veins of hidden rivers," by the happy conjecture of the most erudite Joannes Passeratius, by making a permutation of the first syllable. ...[Note: glosses omitted]... 55. Acula. The vision is troubled, as it were, by the distance of the visible object.A Xenophon, *Cyropaedia* book VI, and Horace, book IV, ode 7. 290. A comparison of the vicissitude of times with a choral dance. Theodoret, *Cyrus in friendship, in exile*. 317. This passage is suspect. 342. *Types*. This reading, if genuine, I shall follow in translation: *With a familiar yoke* [temone], *and a most firm wheel*. 346. Philo Judaeus, *De Opificio Mundi*. 354. He calls the supreme builders [the greatest authors], as the Royal Prophet does (Ps. VIII), the works of God's fingers that call the heavens. 365. Concerning the star of Venus, Lucifer and Vesper, to which Aristotle compares justice in *Ethics* 5. 370. Concerning the conversion of the heavens, Ps. XVIII, LXXXVIII, and CXXXV. 378. Whatever is moved hangs more upon the moving force than upon the counter-force. 424. This is a suspicion of a corruption in the Greek codex. 447. *Manuscripts*. St. Augustine, *Confessions* I. 5: *You give what is owed, losing nothing*. 448. Perhaps we should read in the Greek *And thus also [I would have converted]*: *The solutions of great crimes, that they may be unequal, even as He approves things that are equal*. 479. *Concerning the sacred disease* [περὶ ἱερᾶς νόσου]. I do not accept this Greek inscription: I would prefer *Concerning the struggles and rewards of the martyrs*. 484. St. Basil, Homily 7 in *Hexaemeron*. St. Ambrose, book V, ch. 11: *Nature has placed within oysters the most precious pearl*. St. Paulinus to Eustochium: *Affliction in this age is the material for rewards*. 500. St. Basil, *On the Martyrs*; St. Jerome to Eustochium. 505. *Reward, or thus, the wage and the sickness He brought in torments*. 531. Concerning hail mixed with fire, Exod. IX and X, Ps. CIV, Moses in Canticles, Deut. XXXII, Isaiah IV. 536. This definition of hail, which he criticizes, is treated in book I of *Meteorology*, ch. 12; Ovid, *Metamorphoses* IX; Pontanus, book I of *Meteorology*, ch. 10. 567. *Of syllogisms*, O the slippery flow of arguments! Horace, II *Satires*; Tibullus, book II, elegy 1. 672. *And with woolly down*, and it makes the countenance most pleasant. 682. *And of poems*. It can be translated, and [it is a work] of art. 692. *Matron*. Concerning this being nourished by force, and the rest. Aristotle, book I *De Anima*, ch. 4. 734. Unless our conjecture pleases, we should read: *For it harms the soul with the drug that puffs up the mind*. 784. Concerning nard, and other things see Pliny. 806. Pliny, book VIII, ch. 22. 915. Concerning the camel, Aristotle, *De Mirabilibus Auscultationibus*. 956. Concerning the *catoblepas*. Of this beast, Aelian, *De Natura Animalium* book VII, ch. 5; Pliny, book VIII, ch. 21; Athenaeus, book V; Pomponius Mela, book I, ch. 10. 959. 983. Concerning the trochilus or wren, Plutarch, *De Solertia Animalium*. 1009. Concerning the remora, Aristotle, Pliny, Plutarch, Oppian. 1048. Or, he shows that it remains hidden, etc. 1103. The hunting of shellfish. Aristotle, book IX, ch. 10, *Historia Animalium*; Cicero, *De Natura Deorum* II. 1128. Concerning the same, Herodotus, book II. 1154. Concerning the shrew-mouse, or rather the hedgehog, from Aristotle, book IX *Historia Animalium* ch. 6; Plutarch, *De Solertia Animalium*; St. Basil, homily 9 in *Hexaemeron*. 1161. Concerning sea-urchins, Pliny, book XI, ch. 5; Basil, homily 8 in *Hexaemeron*; Ambrose, book VI, ch. 4 in *Hexaemeron*. 1198. The swan. Philostratus in *Phaethon*. 1214. Concerning the ant, Pliny, book XI, ch. 3; Basil, homily 9 in *Hexaemeron*, and in *Epistle to Eunomius*. 1253. Concerning eggs, Pliny, book X, ch. 59. 1245. Concerning the peacock, Pliny, book X, ch. 20; Cicero, III *De Finibus*; Gellius, book VII, ch. 17; Columella, book VIII, ch. 11; Aelian, book IX. 1250. Concerning locusts, Exod. X; Basil, homily 8 in *Hexaemeron*; Pliny, book XI, ch. 28. 1293. Concerning the silkworm, Aristotle, *Historia Animalium* V; Pliny, book XI, ch. 24; Basil, homily 8; Ambrose, book V, ch. 23 in *Hexaemeron*. 1318. Concerning the celandine, Pliny, book VIII, ch. 17 and 28; Basil, homily 8 in *Hexaemeron*. 1322. Of dogmas, or names. 1394. He alludes to the name of Manes, as Nicephorus [does], book VI, ch. 31. 1531. Ambrose, book II, ch. 8; Isaiah IV, 1. 1549. Pliny, book XXXII, ch. 9 and 10; Cicero, II *De Natura Deorum*. 1567. Concerning the lung-fish, Pliny, book XXXII, ch. 9 and 10; and concerning beetles [cantharis], book XI, ch. 11. 1597. *The tongue*. In these four verses, the translator has followed the conjecture and judgment of Jean Dorat, the Royal Poet. 1644. Concerning pebbles and gems, Pliny, book XXXVII. Concerning pearls, the same book, IX, ch. 35.
NOTICE
The argument concerning the vanity of life, which Pisides took upon himself to treat, as common and worn as it might be, he clearly felt and admitted at the beginning, saying: *Even if it has been said by the God-seeing Fathers,* *The things of this life of ours which is easily known,* Although these things have been said by the Fathers who saw God, which pertain to this life of ours that is easily understood. For to whom has it not been persuaded, or will it be, that all things are vain and fleeting which concern the earthly condition of men? Furthermore, all the ancient philosophers, not to mention the Christians, seeing that all things age with time, that all things are made new, and that great changes of things occur by the motion of the stars and by force, understood that nothing here below could be eternal or long-lasting. Therefore, in a matter so common and confirmed by the consensus of all, it is superfluous to adduce witnesses. So that I may dismiss you in a few words, Reader, you should know that Pisides, as it seems to me, wrote these things to imitate the book of Ecclesiastes, or at least took from there the occasion for treating this subject. For just as we conjectured in the prolegomena to the *Hexaemeron* that the book of Wisdom was the norm by which Pisides fashioned his *Cosmopoeia*, so here, prepared to treat of the vanity of life, if we are not mistaken, he followed Ecclesiastes, whose most holy precepts are wholly concerned with the establishing of this one same principle concerning the instability and inconstancy of worldly things. For the very words with which he begins the work, he almost concludes with the same: *Vanity of vanities, and all is vanity ... all things that are done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and affliction of spirit.* It is certain that Pisides did not hesitate to expound these things at times in the Platonic manner, as is evident from various places, and especially from those verses with which this little poem is concluded, as we shall observe in the annotations. Accordingly, those things which have been said elsewhere concerning the Platonism of Pisides are confirmed. But since no note of time appears from which one might divine...1581 DE VANITATE VITÆ 1582
When our George wrote these things, the affinity of the subject matter made us place this little work immediately after the Hexaemeron: for if one considers the mind and soul of the author, the end and scope of the diverse work is the same. For from both it is clearly deduced that Pisides wished to establish this one thing in his iambics: that there is no wisdom among mortals, no good, no happiness, except that which is gained through the pursuit of true piety and holy religion. This argument is indeed pursued at length by Saint Gregory Nazianzen in the beginning of his 15th oration, where he asserts that true wisdom is a righteous and honest life; but he confirms the same thing far more richly in his iambic poem 18, which is very similar to these senarii of Pisides. For by the same method of thought and meter, the holy Theologian strives to demonstrate that there is no other learning for man, except that, having despised perishable things and being inflamed solely by the study of his own salvation, he should look constantly toward heaven. Since, indeed, the souls of men cannot rest in these earthly things, it is necessary that they betake themselves to divine and eternal things, and having spurned their bodies, they should fly forth and run to those places where they can finally find rest. This poem similarly agrees with the Hexaemeron in that it is likewise inscribed to the Patriarch Sergius—for that person cannot be anyone other than Sergius, whom the poet invokes as warm spring set against the waves of passions at the beginning, verse 54, and greets as the clear eye of the Church at the end, verse 231, thus pointing out and commending him as a bright star of Christian humility.
OF THE SAME: ON THE VANITY OF LIFE
A Open for us, O God, the gates of our mind, Thou who once opened the mouth of the ass. Although it has been spoken by the God-seeing Fathers Concerning the things of our easily-discernible life, B Nevertheless, using them as teachers, I describe myself, as best I can, in meter; Through which I express the immoderacies of the passions I suffer, Remaining the writer and accuser of myself. Depicting the flowing image of life, And wishing to shape the stings of the passions, And with my speech shaving down the sinews of pride, C I will show that its mass stands nowhere firmly. But just as it seemed best to those who portray Fortune As having a sphere for a fickle base, So I will show the shaky legs of pride To be both light and, furthermore, slackened.
Mentis nostræ portas reseres, Deus, qui os asinæ quondam aperuisti. Equidem fatear ea omnia, quæ ad hanc nostram vitam facile dignoscendam pertinent, satis esse perspecta, et a Patribus, qui Deum viderunt, fuisse explanata: nihilo tamen secius ego ipsos adhibens magistros, meipsum, quantum licet, versibus describam; unde malorum affectuum, quibus premor, immensitatem enarrans, B de meipso fiam scriptor et accusator. Cum igitur vitæ fluentem imaginem describere, et passionum stimulos repræsentare, nervosque vanitatis quodammodo edolare sermonibus mihi proponam, illud sane evincam, ut nullam inesse humano fastui firmitatem quivis intelligat. At vero sicuti nonnullis placuit Fortunam eo statu pingere, ut pro basi insistat globo ad labendum prono; ita Fastus
A for he does not stand, running as if on a sphere; and he is pulled upward and dragged downward. While being exalted he is unfortunate, and carried on high B he falls more quickly; and having fallen, he overturns the throne that Fortune had previously set as light as air. For by describing Pride as the offspring of Fortune, I shall prove the outcome of both: the one, before it is even conceived, perishes in corruption, a miserable, aborted birth. For pride is punished as it scowls, having become haughty at the sight of the greater. It is beaten and violently pushed aside, as one who pushes a peg with another peg. A For just as if some weak hunter, wishing to strike a lion with a pine-wood spear, is destroyed by his own missiles; so does humble pride, if it should strike at something great. But O thou who art the warmth of my words, B you who oppose the storm that is upon us and breathe against the surge of the passions, direct our speaking vessel, breathing spirit into our ship by your prayer. For being tossed about by the raging storm of life, I am moved and I write at once. The dust, the clay, the base returning dirt—for in the earth, the earth is brought together again.
NOTE
C 17. You have verses in Saint Gregory Nazianzen, vol. II, page 155, which I submit to you: "This small and many-turning life is a wheel fixed unsteadily. It turns upward and revolves downward. For it does not stand, even if it seems to be fixed; while fleeing, it is caught; and while remaining, it runs away. It leaps much, and it has no power to flee; it drags and pulls its station down with its movement, portraying life as nothing—either smoke, or a dream, or the flower of grass. For life runs and rolls like the wheel of a chariot." In all editions of Saint Gregory, this note is placed with these verses: "They are read in George Pisida's *De vanitate vita*." But having compared the verses of Pisida and Saint Gregory with one another, I see nothing else that can be inferred therefrom, except that Pisida was an imitator of the praised Father, since otherwise the iambics differ greatly from the iambics. And Saint Gregory indeed likens human life to a wheel, imitating, as it seems, Anacreon, who says in Ode 4: D Pisida, however, clearly, as it seems to me, alludes to that type of dancer and tumbler who are called *askoliastai*, because they would endeavor to leap with only one foot onto an inflated, well-greased wineskin (to make it slippery). However, it often happened to them that they would fall not without the loud laughter of the spectators and would slip, and then endeavor to climb back onto the skin. 19. *Cod. Vat.* "the puff of fortune." 25. He includes Fortune, pride, and ambition under one name, as if he considered them to be derived from one and the same source of human vanity. 26. For envy, eating and gnawing from pride—Statius *Silv.* v, 132, explains Pisida's meaning: "Who bound Fortune and envy with unhappy kinship? Who ordered the unequal goddesses to fight eternally?" 29. *Id. Hexaem.*, v. 1707. 50. I think he mentions the pine spear to show its fragility, which, although it is easily bent, is less suited for striking. 53. *Id.* "if he strikes great," and then follows "from his own," etc., which is certainly better. 54. Sergius praises piety at length, as he does more in the beginning and end of the *Hexaemeron*. 41. Sixteen entire verses are also found among the iambic poems of Saint Gregory Nazianzen, vol. II, page 179. But I do not doubt that they are falsely attributed to Gregory, although from the note that is read ibid., page 174, it is gathered that they were extracted from a certain Greek codex of the Queen Mother, which bore Gregory's name. For it is evident that these little verses are entirely necessary here, and adhere to their body as a limb; and anyone will easily confess that they approach Pisida's style more than Gregory's. But who would believe that Pisida scraped together sixteen entire verses from Gregory! For my part, if there is room for conjecture, I judge that not only these verses are to be claimed for Pisida, but others also from among those which are [between the iambic poems...]indeed swaddled in earthly swaddling clothes. And earth once more proceeds, just as dust, which the violent swirling of winds lifts on high, then forces down. For in this way do the tempests of wicked spirits lift up our versatile life on high, and [bestow] a hollow glory. Yet again the earth descends and bows downward, until the Word of the Creator disposes the necessary release of those things that are bound together. But now, rising up as if from some depth, the earth—formed in the image of the divine—enacts nothing but earthly tragedies with empty clamor, and weeps for a life that seems to laugh.
A Already, then, the mythologists used to fashion a horse of human form, or conversely, a man of taurine appearance confounded with it; B showing, I think, our confounded life. For much laughter will be stored up for us, unless a wise mind piously translates their hidden meanings. Downward, to be sure, a man had been fashioned, but upward, displaying a horned form, it had enigmatical meanings henceforth. As anyone who mixes beast-like manifestations of the passions with the rational nature destroys the creature, and, confounded, passes from the Word into beastliness.
C [...] as to whether they are indeed about desire, about the death of those who are loved, [or] about friends who are not good. [...] A man of taurine appearance [means] that because of the weakness of human affairs, which are not clearly perceived, myth is a more elegant interpreter. "Well done, O poets and sons of poets, fathers of the ancient and noble Muse, how clearly you have revealed to us the bond that draws us toward pleasures. . . . This is what the Centaurs signify, this the Gorgons, this the Chimaeras, Geryon, [and] Cercops."
"The part of the soul that desires food and drink . . . they placed between the midriff and the boundary that is at the navel, as if it were a manger in this entire region . . . and they bound such a thing there as if it were a wild animal."
Thus transformed by the evil mockery, man was turned into a stalled ox, and because he eats the hay of the passions in vain, he has changed his beauty into deformity. I believe he also fittingly received a bond, as in a labyrinth, for life is manifold and has a crooked, impassable door. For the more he hastens to run out of it, just so much the more does he find himself within the exit. From this, I think, I am deservedly whipped by diseases and anxieties, like an idle beast, so that, burdened by this evil intermingling and being pulled and weighed down below, I might run toward recovery like the sick. A O the untwisted grass of our state! O living sprout, whose beauty quickly withers with the reaping of time! Who then, having observed from a distant heart this theater of life, teeming with shame, would not temper the play with a weeping that mocks? For already those who are base laborers of a base laughter often mock us as well, setting up thrones, painting dignities, and fashioning principalities so that madness might contrive the calamity of laughter. And someone among them, wrapped in an authoritative cloak, is exalted and dreams up a fortune, and without speaking, frames his dignity; but he imagines that he is everything, while he is nothing. B Just as one who is weak [strives] toward good health, so I shall strive to return to the appearance of my original form. O how fleeting and falling is the grass of our life! O truly living sprout, whose grace perishes as soon as the time of harvest approaches! The man who is led astray by error mingles and destroys his first form, and after allowing a base mixture, passes from a rational state into the nature of brutes; and thus, a man shamefully seduced is converted into a stalled ox, and having rashly grazed on the hay of the passions, he changes the glory of his own form into deformity. And indeed, quite fittingly, man, who consists of a double nature, took on a bond; for he lives, as it were, in a labyrinth, in this variety of life whose gate is crooked and impassable: for the more he hastens to go out of it, the more he recognizes that he is far from the exit. And hence it plainly comes to pass that I myself am deservedly and rightly vexed and tormented by so many diseases and cares, like a sluggish beast, so that, having grown weary of the company of wild passions, by the weight of which I am distracted and pressed downward, I may C be nothing in reality, yet imagine myself to be everything. Who, therefore, when he has seen this theater of life, full of infamy, from the inner depths of his heart, would not temper his laughter with weeping, and extinguish the ludicrous with tears? Especially since those adulterate laughers, those adulterate artifices, often mock us indeed, who propose thrones, paint dignities, and simulate princedoms, so that from an insane drunkenness of mind an occasion for ridiculous calamity might arise. For often one of them walks about on high, dressed in a royal robe, and immediately appears fortunate, and silently represents dignity; and when he is nothing in reality, he imagines himself to be everything.
And, knowing nothing, he desires to appear to know, Having a double folly in one soul, A counterfeit sophist, a foolishly Atticized man; And he is mocked, yet for the time being he thinks himself great, 105 Until the play of life has passed by. Such is the nature of flowing things, Sister to the stage, kinswoman to dreams; For all the surge of pride passes by, Like sleep, like a dream that has no stability; 110 And often, what has been poured out and shattered A In the state of thoughts during sleep, Lifts the man up with a light vision. He steals the mind, and transforms the nature, Like a wicked highwayman of the mind. 115 And he gathers for himself wealth that is not present, And fashions the images of dreams, Showing forth tokens of joy that cannot be snatched. And he offers white-skinned pearls, And kindles the unseen stones of the fire-flashing 120 Coals, and inflames the heart Of him who has not received, as though he had received the grace; I know not how he portrays the figment of dreams As a reality, and, in a life that destroys the mind, Looks upon the senseless delusion as sensible. 125 But a little while, and soon the grace has passed away; For immediately it deprives him of the reality, The voiceless bird, the messenger of the day. For fortunes also steal away the friends Through whom they possess their fleshly, soul-snatching things; 130 Unless someone, being sober, should throw back against them B
A the cognitive purpose of symmetry, so that neither loosely nor yet remissly moving the nerves of the instruments within us, it may loosen the tension proper to the soul; nor again by a violent and heavy tension does it disturb these common arrows of life; but perhaps, with rhythm, it tunes the lyre, so that through it, being securely braced, the beasts of the reasonings may also rest, whenever nature, failing of what is proper, turns aside to beastly lives. For this man is shown to be steadfast, B having stepped over the nets of deception, and the slippery paths of the turning Fortune. For what is called Fortune by others, however much it may be raised, all the surge of vanity seethes in appearance, and slips away in its nature, and is lifted up toward great danger and fear; just as those who run with an extended leg, C just as those who run at a height in a lofty tension on thin-set ropes; if they should slip at all from the heights, they fall into the depth of the shatterings. But if, on the other hand, he is lowly, and looks downward, he is lifted toward the height, and more than Perseus, even if he is not winged, he slays the Gorgons.
that is, the sins that are horrible to behold, which convert into animate stone those men who gaze upon them intently with sharp eyes. But then, turning against the monster of the passions, he slays this very monster with a most swift course, or rather, flight, and preserves the venerable virgin of the heart. For if anyone, desirous of knowledge, wishes to learn himself, according to the prudence he possesses, he will clearly know the nature of all things, and will say that he has attained the true prudence of the world; for human nature is a small world: and then, persuaded that he is nothing, in his wisdom he walks upward by stepping downward; he flees from honorable fame as if it were certain infamy; he considers great disgrace to be glory; for things which are insults to those held in honor are testimonies of praise to those who have been insulted. A For what is called Fortune by others is an image of an indecent dancing girl, who twists herself in the various flexions of her feet and in her gyrations, and with the gestures of her hands, as it were, through certain B things of the world...
On the Vanity of Life
They [the passions] change into animate stones those who gaze intently upon the unsightly sins of error, and who are turned towards the monster of the passions; the one side slays [the soul] in a soaring course, but the other preserves the venerable heart of virgins. For if someone wishing to be a disciple desires sensibly to know himself, he has known the whole of nature; and he naturally possesses worldly prudence (for human nature is a small world). And persuaded that he is nothing, in his wisdom he walks upward by stepping downward; he flees from honorable fame as if it were dishonor, and he possesses much glory in what is considered ignoble; for those things which are insults to those who are honored, these same things are praise to those who have been insulted. For what is named Fortune by others is an image of an indecent dancing girl, twisting herself in her own turns, and managing the creations of life with her hands C ... and [it is said] long ago: that to act and to know both his own affairs and himself belongs only to the wise man. Reflect upon your nature and your constitution, and this is sufficient for you to be perpetually settled. ...for the microcosm, but God first adorned all these things, and then from these composed this entire whole, one living being, having in itself all things, both mortal and immortal. Which I would call another world, as it were, a great one in a small one. ...for it is he who is most [truly] one who knows himself, he who considers himself to be nothing. ...Shall I call you an orator? Shall I name you a painter? You paint reality, and you simulate speeches of every kind, and you are a vivid image of all nature; instead of colors and language, you use a multiform hand and variable habits; and like some Pharian Proteus, you seem at one time to have been transformed toward another, to the tuneful song of the things presented; but the people stand upright, amazed with wonder, and send forth reciprocal voices melodiously, and move their hands, and shake their garments; then, sitting together, one tells another of the movements of the multiform silence; and every spectator, from pleasure, attempts to become a dancer D ... [the art] ... is called dancing with the hands, dancing with the legs.
by the obscure shadows of non-existent things. She tosses herself about indecorously while dancing, and turns her pupils frequently toward those upon whom she wishes to cast her wanton glance. Immediately, she sends her gaze toward another, wishing to be accompanied in her viewing. She assumes many forms, imitating everything, yet seeing nothing of those things which are always fixed. She is a true harlot, who loves no one, yet makes a show of desiring with every passion. For some, there are offices, thrones, and platforms, to whom hostilities and anxieties are innate; but for those whose mind is firmly established, prayers are their thrones, and divine discourses their platforms. For others, a bold-tongued mouth is pleasing, but for the wise man, silence and the tranquility of the heart. For others, that mind-corrupting envy is the object of love, A while the blood-dripping apple is the object of murderous strife; but for the noble, there is a battle against envy, and a strife to end strife. B And for some, the burden of food is sweet, the vehicle of gluttony that leads to diseases; but for the wise, hunger is both their drink and their food, that which does not burden the natural state with dreams. Others are damaged by the addition of wealth; but for the noble, a pious loss is a gain. For others, the front seat is eagerly sought, the pleasant house, the poor pleasure, the fragile success of spurious fame; but for the man of good sense, every land is a front seat, for the land is shared equally by thrones and by tombs, unless some zeal for an innate passion C bites us when we see the unworthy in positions of merit; for to shout even louder than Stentor, D [by those who are moved] ... when they only charmed the eyes, when the multiform dancer was rolled about in a storm of swift movements, having nods as a discourse, the palm as a mouth, the fingers as a voice.
A
It is not needful to rebuke those who possess good things, even if some person, reviling them, should overwhelm them; but, on the other hand, the wicked man, if one were not even to wish to fashion him, is like a jackdaw clothed in strange feathers, knowing his own misshapenness of character to be a source of praise. For the present brilliance passes away, and all the light and unstable nature of glory stretches itself out, and again is contracted; just as a wicked serpent by its twistings seems to extend itself, and yet further contracts. So that we might learn to regard the proud in their ways as snakes and the offspring of dragons. Thus the whole course of life creeps past, and the contraction of all pride is shattered, like a bubble pulsing and swollen; B and while it is lifted toward the heights in appearance, if anything small should secretly slip into its midst, a straw, a mote, or a drop, that light thing is turned into the opposite.
But O, bright eye of the Church, O paternal mind, O humble heart! Since even if thou dost fly and range through the ether, yet thou wast humble, and dost associate with those below; do thou show us in a more intellectual way how it is possible to find, in reciprocal movements, the poor character which is by nature heaven-bound, and yet how the poor mass remains lowly, and is nailed to the earth. C
As not ungracefully, as it seems to me, Plato also…
ON THE VANITY OF LIFE
A One should not rebuke the good, even if some slanderer should overwhelm them with insults; but as for the wicked man, I would not even wish to compare him to a jackdaw dressed in borrowed feathers, who considers his own moral deformity to be a credit to himself.
For the splendor of this present life passes away most rapidly, and it is a marvel how great is the lightness and inconstancy of human glory; for if it extends itself even a little, it is instantly contracted—in the same way as that malignant dragon is accustomed to twist itself with its coils, whose cunning is such that it seems to be distended, and yet instantly gathers itself up; whence one easily learns what is the nature of the proud, and that they are to be held as serpents and the sons of dragons.
And so, indeed, the whole course of life slips away, and the tumor of all earthly pleasures is broken and cast down, like a bubble leaping and inflated by the wind, which in its appearance seems to be carried on high: but if even the slightest thing should secretly enter into it—a straw, a speck of dust, or a drop—the opposite effect instantly arises; for the tumor and the lightness vanish, and are compressed by the force and impact of the body falling upon them.
But, O refulgent eye of the Church, O paternal mind, and heart demure and humble (for although thou dost fly on high, and traverse the ether, thou art truly humble, and dost not disdain to dwell among earthly things): do thou show us, according to the measure of thy rational and more perfect knowledge, in what manner it is possible for one to attain that affection of soul which is indeed poor, and yet by its own nature makes its way through the heavens; by which, while one refers oneself back and steps backward with a pressed foot, one always makes progress; and how, on the contrary, the wretched Pride, always striving to rise on high, is pushed downward and clings to the earth—so much so that not ineptly, in my opinion, even Plato wrote that pride is deeply fixed in the human heart, and adheres to it as... C
A the final garment of sin. For even if human nature succeeds in casting off the many coverings of the passions, it still bears the burdensome garment of pride. And this weighs heavy right up to the gates of Hades. Or rather, while all other passions die away, pride refuses to come to an end, nor does it wish to grow old. For it is, for the most part, a disease of the soul, and the mind is the sufferer, while the nourishment of this passion is the venom of the impious dragon; for with the very arrow by which it was struck, it seeks to strike man in return.
For the mind, like a secure charioteer, accustomed to driving the yoked colts—the unruly movements of the passions—strangles rage, but curbs pride only with difficulty. The desire that rushes forward, it gathers together with the lash of reason, fearing lest, conspiring with its fellow-worker rage, it might overturn the charioteer, reason; and in the midst of these, there is found the chariot, bright and established by God.
The rest is wanting.
Setting the soul into the earthy body as a charioteer into a chariot, and having handed the reins to the charioteer, He allowed it to run... and it governs the chariot and punishes the horses; but they are truly of every sort, others rushing to run in different directions; thus a chariot in discord disturbs the charioteer; so that even if he masters it, it is borne along according to the force of the powerful horse, etc.
D
NOTES
The desire for glory is called the tunic of the other passions, because while it often casts off others, it itself adheres more to the soul. Tacitus looked to this too, when he said (Hist. IV, 6): "The desire for glory is the last to be cast off by the wise."
The lines comparing the mind to a charioteer, and the chariot, that is, the spirit and the body, as one thing together being directed, are taken from the Phaedrus, p. 246 and 247. Let one compare them who wishes: for it is better here to adduce the testimony of Maximus of Tyre, who marvelously agrees with Pisida, in the end of his dissertation: "God placed the soul in the mortal body, as a charioteer in a wagon, and having handed the reins into the hand of the charioteer, He allowed it to be borne along its course... the soul guides the chariot and punishes the impetus of the horses. They, on the contrary, rush in different directions, and one strives for one goal, another for another... Thus a chariot distracted in different directions troubles the charioteer. But if the charioteer is carried by the horses, nor does the chariot obey the reins, there the axle follows the impetus of the more powerful horses," etc. Furthermore, this doctrine drawn from Plato by Pisida, Cicero explains in a few words in the beginning of *Tusc. quaest.* I: "Plato imagined a triple soul, whose governing part, that is, reason, he placed in the head, as in a citadel, and he wished to separate two parts: rage and desire, which he separated by location; he placed rage in the breast, and desire beneath the diaphragm."
"Reason" he calls the charioteer; for *diphrostaten* is a cart-driver, by whom the team is governed, and the two horses by which the chariot is drawn are rage and concupiscence. Reason guides both and terrifies them with a lash, but reason itself cannot coerce pride, which is the mother of all the perturbations of the soul.
Following Morell, we have added to the poem the words *leipei t'alla*, as if something were missing at the end; but truly those words are found neither in the Vatican nor the Paris codex, and it is our clear opinion that nothing is missing here.
FR. MORELLI SCHOLIA
Vers. 13. Galen in *Exhort. ad artes*. 79. By the use of reason. Against those who obliterate the image of God and the dignity of reason which they carry in themselves. See *Opificium mundi*. 110. Basil, *De humil.*; see Gregory Nazianzen, *Tetr.* 55; Plato, *Politic.* IX; Cicero, I *De divinat.* 166. Verses enclosed in a lacuna raise the suspicion of a fault. 201. *Jactura*. Similar is that of the comic poet: *Pecuniam negligere in loco, lucrum est*. 208. *Videmus, vel vidimus*, while we are lacking in rank. 209. Concerning Stentor, Homer, *Iliad*, whence the proverb *Stentorea vox*. 215. In the Greek there is a lacuna, or a suspicion of a fault. 230. St. Jerome in *Epist. ad Fabiolam*. *Difficilis*, which we lack in gold and gems.
MONITUM.
Severus, whom the Pisidian [author] here openly attacks with his iambics and rightly calls impious from the start, was born in Sozopolis, one of the cities of the province of Pisidia. His life was in circulation at the time of Evagrius, who seems to have drawn from it the things which he narrates regarding Severus; for he says, *Hist. eccl.* lib. III, cap. 33: "As for these things, the author who composed the life of Severus has recorded them," and mentions more who authored the life of Severus. But now, as regards what concerns Severus, one must seek it from that same Evagrius, from Book 19 of the *Breviary* of Liberatus the deacon, from Book XVI, cap. 19 of the *History* of Nicephorus, and from the *Acts* of the council of Constantinople under Mennas, not to mention more recent writers. He was a man fierce in spirit, crafty by nature, endowed with lost morals, and instructed by nature and art for the perpetrating of every crime. It seems he was raised and educated in the rites of the Gentiles; he first applied himself to witchcraft, deceptions, and magical arts, then occupied himself in pleading cases at Berytus, and later, having been brought to Phoenicia, he received holy baptism in the Tripolitan Church dedicated to the martyr Leontius, and became a monk in a monastery which was situated between the city of Gaza and the town of Majuma. There, having initiated a friendship with Peter the Iberian and Timothy Aelurus, he openly and publicly professed one nature in Christ, contrary to the abbot of the monastery, Nephalius, by whom he was expelled along with those who adhered to his opinion. But Severus took refuge with the Emperor Anastasius, the patron of the Eutychians, along with the monks expelled by Nephalius. By the Emperor's favor and will, in the year 513, he became a monk-bishop and occupied the Theopolitan or Antiochene see, from which Flavian had been expelled through wickedness. A Then indeed great disturbances arose, because the orthodox bishops were unwilling to accept his synodal letters, in which he had in express words and quite impudently anathematized the Council of Chalcedon; they fastened him with an anathema as one unworthy to fill such a see, and announced that he had fallen from the Antiochene throne by a letter of resignation sent through the deacon Aurelian of Epiphaneia. Severus, however, having assumed Peter the Iberian as an associate in his crimes, sought to retain his dignity by force from the Church of Apamea, which he had occupied—hence being called the "Apamenean"—and delivered to chains, prisons, and death whoever he recognized as not favoring him. It is better to repeat the impious deeds of Severus, the horrible crimes, and the immense evils perpetrated in the churches and monasteries, from the petitions of the monks and bishops of Second Syria as reported among the acts of the council of Constantinople under Mennas; for the narrowness of this space does not allow us to recount everything. Meanwhile, upon the death of Anastasius, the Emperor Justin ordered the tongue with which Severus had often blasphemed God to be cut out, but he avoided the deserved punishment by flight. For, escaping secretly by night, he came to Seleucia and, having boarded a ship, betook himself to Alexandria, to which city Julian of Halicarnassus had also fled, having been driven from his episcopal see by the order of Justin, for the same reason. B While they were living in Alexandria, a dispute arose as to whether the body of Christ should be called corruptible or incorruptible. Now when Severus asserted that it was corruptible and Julian that it was incorruptible, dissensions were first made between them, and then new heresies were born in Egypt; for as the Alexandrians were divided among themselves, and some held one opinion while others held another, then finally the "Corrupticolae"—who felt the same as Severus—and the "Phantasiastae"—who felt the same as Julian—were named. But Severus, when Justin had departed from the living and Justinian had become emperor, immediately conceived the hope in his mind that, by the authority and power of the Augusta Theodora, he would be restored to his see. And then he wrote letters first to Theodora herself and to Justinian, but afterward betook himself to Constantinople, where he joined himself to the patriarch Anthimus, who was of the same opinion, and exhorted him to prefer being stripped of his see rather than to subscribe to the Chalcedonian synod. But the evil arts by which Severus and his supporters were sustained fell utterly, God willing; for Anthimus was indeed deposed by the most holy pontiff Agapetus, and his successor Mennas, at a council convened in the royal city, condemned Anthimus himself along with Severus, Peter the Iberian (or Apamenean), and the Syrian monk Zoaras in the year 536—which sentence the Emperor Justinian confirmed by a constitution. C Then indeed there was an outcry everywhere against Severus; but he was forced to flee back into Egypt, where, lurking for a few years, he finally died as a fugitive and in obscurity. For the Emperor had ordered that he should depart from the royal city and other more distinguished cities, *ἀλλ’ ἐν ἐρημίᾳ τινὶ καὶ ἡσυχίᾳ καθῆσθαι, καὶ μὴ διαφθείρειν ἑτέρους, μηδὲ εἰς βλασφημίαν αὐτοὺς προάγειν*, that he should sit in some solitude and in silence, lest he corrupt others or lead them into blasphemy.
It was fitting to touch briefly upon these matters concerning the life of Severus, lest anyone might justly complain that more things which occur in this little poem lack their light. Truly, some other things are to be weighed by us more diligently for the same reason. And first, indeed, one must see what the errors of Severus were and what sect he established. He suffered from a double vice among the orthodox: I.) Because as the Antiochene patriarch, he asserted one nature in Christ contrary to the definition of the Council of Chalcedon; for, as Evagrius says, *συνοδικὰς ἐπιστολὰς γράφων ῥητῶς τὴν ἐν Χαλκηδόνι σύνοδον ἀνατεθεμάτικε*, "in his synodal epistles he openly anathematized the Chalcedonian synod." II.) Because, driven from Antioch and brought to Alexandria, he taught that the body of Christ before the resurrection was *φθαρτόν*, corruptible; which, indeed, he seems to affirm correctly, but since he professed one nature in Christ, he was making the Divinity in some way subject to corruption. See below the annotations to the poem on Severus, verses 190, 465, and 467. But in the sentence passed against him by Mennas, he is accused of many crimes, and in the Constitution of Justinian, it is declared that he received the dogmas of Nestorius and Eutyches both at once: *δύο γὰρ ὄντων ἐναντίον ἀλλήλοις δογμάτων... αὐτός τι παράδοξον παθών, ὁμοίως εἰς ἑκάτερον ἐμπέπτωκε*, "for as there were two dogmas opposing each other... he himself, having suffered something paradoxical, fell into both alike." And Pisida certainly, who attacks Severus as a Monophysite, also often strikes at him as a Nestorian, as is clear from verse 102 to verse 129, and more openly in v. 210. D *Ἐγὼ δὲ τούτου τῶν βεβήλων δογμάτων Μύστην ὁρῶ σε, κἂν δοκεῖς λεληθέναι.* "I indeed see you as an initiate of these wicked dogmas (of Nestorius), even though you seem to be hiding." Therefore, what is certain is that Severus was a Monophysite; but since he was unable to be consistent with himself or to teach certain dogmas to his disciples, it happened from this that he always moved new disturbances in the Church, added error to error, and changed his faith according to the reason of the times. A testimony of which thing is brought forward by Liberatus, cap. 9, saying that he first did not even [accept] the edict of Zeno, and a little later...
A he did not receive Peter Mongus, and a little later he adhered to Mongus, and became his apocrisiarius at Constantinople. Hence Pisida in many places lashes him for his inconstancy and levity, and at v. 356, he exclaims:
Ταὶ συγχύσεις ὁρῶν, καὶ διαιρέσεις πλέκων Οὐ δογμάτων τοσοῦτον, ὡς τῶν σχισμάτων, Σκόπος γὰρ ἦν σοι μὴ τοσοῦτον συλλέγειν, Ὅσον τὰ τέκνα συμβαλεῖν, καὶ σκορπῆσαι.
O viewing confusions, and weaving divisions Not of dogmas so much, as of schisms! For your aim was not so much to collect, As to bring the children together, and scatter them. And not so much of dogmas, as of schisms! For it was your design, not so much to collect, As to incite the children among themselves, and to disperse.
Since from the school of Severus, and his tumultuous discipline, all those sects of the Monophysites have sprung, of which, besides Leontius, Timotheus the Presbyter of Constantinople treats in his book *On the Reception of Heretics*, p. 400, who, having marveled at such great dissension of opinions from one head, rightly concludes: Τίς οὖν οὐκ ἀπογνώσεται τῶν εἰς τοσαῦτα τμήματα διῃρημένων, καὶ ἀλλήλους ἀναθεματιζόντων, εἰ μὴ παντελῶς ἐστι φρενῶν ἔρημος; "Who then would not despair of those divided into so many parts, and anathematizing one another, unless he is utterly destitute of his senses?" Therefore, some writers might not seem to have spoken quite correctly, who called Severus the parent of the Acephali in a general sense; since the Acephali were truly (as it is in Timotheus, p. 409): Οἱ μὴ δεξάμενοι τὸ ἐνωτικὸν Ζήνωνος, διὰ τὸ μὴ ἀναθεματισθῆναι ἐν αὐτῷ τὴν ἐν Χαλκηδόνι ἁγίαν σύνοδον. Ἀκέφαλοι δὲ ἐκλήθησαν διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν αὐτοὺς ἐπισκόπους. "Those who did not accept the Enoticon of Zeno, because the holy council at Chalcedon was not anathematized in it. And they were called Acephali ('headless') because they did not have bishops for themselves." B They were called Acephali, because, when they had departed from Peter Mongus, who at that time held the Alexandrian see, they did not have bishops. For *Acephalos*, as it seems, they were not afraid to be named, so as to show that they were not subject to any patriarchs or metropolitans—who were called *autokephaloi* ('self-headed'), as Bingham demonstrates at length, b. 1, ch. 18—nor were they attached or subject to them. And these things indeed agree with those which Liberatus narrates, ch. 18. But Severus either pretendedly adhered to the Acephali, or so adhered that he taught them worse things; for as the same Liberatus says, ch. 19: "Both he accepted the Enoticon of Zeno, which the Acephali rejected, and anathematized the Council of Chalcedon, and confessed that he was in communion with the Alexandrian and Constantinopolitan patriarchs." Therefore, he should truly be called the parent not of the Acephali, but of the Severians or Severites, by which name the sects of many heretics are comprehended, which Anastasius in the *Hodegetes* declares were ten, for which reason he always calls the heresy of the Severians *dekakeraton*, "instructed with ten horns," to which Timotheus agrees, p. 403, who also enumerates the individual sects and describes their errors. Indeed, from a muddy fountain, many miry streams have been led off, flowing in all directions, and pouring out the virus of Monophysitism under no fixed law: whence Pisida argues against Severus C opportunely, v. 95:
Τέως μὲν οὖν, Σευῆρε συμπεφυρμένε Πρώτῳ γὰρ οἶμαι τῷ διδασκάλῳ πρέπει Τὴν τῶν μαθητῶν ἐγκαλεῖν ἀταξίαν.
What then is this, Severus, such confusion? For I think it is proper, in the first place, for the teacher To rebuke the disorder of his disciples.
But since the Acephali, who were indeed Eutychians, holding their "parabatismata"—assemblies—and conventicles through houses everywhere, immediately fell into the same crimes of abomination and iniquity as were condemned in Severus, as will be evident to anyone comparing what Timotheus relates about the Acephali with what is written in the sentences passed against Severus by Epiphanius and Mennas; from that, I suppose, it happened that the Acephali were distinguished from the Severians in name only, but in reality they had added themselves to Severus, who wished both to reject and to approve the Henoticon of Zeno, according as the occasion demanded, and willingly passed into his camp; whence Severus is not undeservedly called by most writers the parent and prince of the Acephali, and the name of Acephali has become common to all Monophysites. D And Severus indeed, as the president of the Acephali, was accused in the petition of the monks presented to Mennas: "presiding over his own sect of Acephali, and not admitting the so-called Enoticon." Nor does Pisida seem to dissent from this, for when he writes against Severus and his followers, he distinguishes the Severians from the Acephali not at all, for he says, v. 65:
Πολλοὶ γάρ εἰσι τῶν Ἀκεφάλων αὐχένες Πολλὰς ἔχοντες πανταχοῦ διαιρέσεις. For many are the necks of the Acephali, Having many divisions everywhere.
Which also he expressed more clearly in v. 343, calling the Acephali of his own time the sons of Severus:
Ὠ τέκνα πατρός, καὶ τὸ λοιπὸν οὐ λέγω. O children of the father, and I say not the rest.
And thus he truly instructs the whole poem, so that he turns his discourse now to Severus the parent, now to the sons. This, however, becomes more manifest from the agreement of Severus and the Acephali in establishing the same dogmas. For although many of Severus’s writings have perished, and those which still exist lie hidden in the Coislinian Library, as may be gathered from the Catalogue of the same library, p. 55, nevertheless, from the writers who refuted the dogmas of the Severians and Acephali, it is sufficiently proven that the ravings of all were the same, and their opinions the same. Let anyone who wishes read, besides the iambics of our George, the books written against the Heretics by Anastasius Sinaita, by Saint Maximus, by Leontius of Byzantium, by John of Damascus, by Gelasius, by Theodore Abucara, by Rusticus the deacon, and others; and he will find absolutely nothing in which the Severians appear to dissent from the Acephali, or the Acephali from the Severians. For the whole family of Monophysites, with not even the Jacobites excepted—whose greatest patron after Eutyches and Dioscorus was Severus—contributed their strength to this one end: to undermine the authority of the Council of Chalcedon by whatever tricks and fallacies they could. But since, as happens, error breeds error, they destroyed themselves with mutual fights and wounds, and dissected into various sects and various schisms, they often changed their name, but kept their spirit always hostile against the orthodox, never departing from Severus their teacher, who is rightly therefore called by Anastasius in the *Hodegetes* (in Gretser): "orchestre of this ten-horned instructress, prince or exarch"; and p. 52, "Decurio"; and p. 8, "legislator." Indeed, as it seemed to Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem, Severus embraced the errors not only of the Monophysites but of all heretics: for, with all those heretics who had existed from the cradle of the Church condemned in his *Synodica*, which was read in the synod, the holy man concludes thus: "With whom all, and before all, and after all, and according to all, and above all, let there be also anathema for Severus, their most maddened disciple, and the most cruel tyrant of all the Acephali, both new and old." And let us come to Pisida, and see for what reason he wrote this Poem against Severus. That is primarily evident under the name of Severus of his own time.
A He produced [it], it seems, in almost the same manner as the *Hexaemeron* against Proclus, but he truly transfixed the heretics contemporary to himself, and still surviving, with his iambics, as has been set forth more fully in the *Admonition to the Hexaemeron*. For how much the sect of Severus still flourished in the time of Pisida, saint Maximus, his contemporary and equal, teaches, saying in Epistle 39, volume II, p. 259: "Severus, who used such madness of falsehood and excess against the truth, that even until today it is enough to trouble the holy Church of God." I speak of Severus, who used such madness and abundance of lies against the truth that it suffices even until now to cause trouble for the holy Church of God, and to be a burden to it. But against whom Pisida here directs his pen, I think it easier to have detected; since several things occur which designate, if I am not mistaken, either Paulus Monoculus or Athanasius the Syrian, with whom the emperor Heraclius disputed. And that it may be established how these things were done, it will be helpful to touch upon some things concerning the origin of Monothelitism; for we fall into those times in which Monophysitism secretly, and step by step, shifted into Monothelitism.
That no one is ignorant of what and how great was the solicitude and care of Heraclius regarding ecclesiastical matters, such that he often wished to treat even of the dogmas of the faith without consultation, is clear. The witness is Pisida, v. 74, [stating that] after peace was concluded with the Persians, he applied his mind and spirit entirely to the affairs of religion and to calming the disturbances of the Church: "Towards the Scriptures he turned from the Barbarians, As he who had persuaded the Barbarians to be quiet, Might persuade the heresies to be quiet with them."
B But already, however, even when he was fighting against Chosroes, as often as the opportunity was given to him, he did not hesitate to discourse on matters of faith and to descend into the arena with heretics; whence our [poet], at v. 700, speaks to him thus: "For while campaigning you did not lay aside your arguments, And while orating you did not cast away your sword. For you did not, during wars, bid farewell to discourses, Nor, during discourses, did you cast away the sword."
But truly nothing declares the excessive zeal for piety by which Heraclius was inflamed more clearly than that twofold congress which he held regarding matters pertaining to the faith, first with Paulus Monoculus, and then with Athanasius the Jacobite. Patriarch Sergius gives confirmation of the first congress in his celebrated epistle to Pope Honorius, in which these things are read: "When he was making the campaign against the Persians and had reached the parts of the Armenian region, one of the leaders of the impious faction of the accursed Severus, by the name of Paulus, appearing in those places, made an approach to his piety, bringing forward an argument on behalf of the heresy that was wandering in him." [Sergius adds:] "After which, the impious Paulus being refuted by the same emperor, as a true champion of our most holy Church, he brought forward right and immaculate dogmas against his profane artifices; among which he also made mention of the one energy of Christ our true God."
C From which it is evident that Heraclius, as soon as he came into Armenia with the army, had held a colloquy. Of the second congress, Theophanes is the witness, p. 271: "In that year, the emperor Heraclius being in Hierapolis, there came to him Athanasius the patriarch of the Jacobites, a clever man and a mischief-maker with the innate mischief of the Syrians, and having stirred up discussions of faith with the emperor, Heraclius promised him, if he would accept the council at Chalcedon, to make him patriarch of Antioch. He, feigning [agreement], accepted the council, having confessed two natures in Christ. He also asked the emperor concerning the energy, and the wills, how one ought to speak of these in Christ, as double or unique? The emperor, being perplexed, writes to Sergius of Constantinople. He also summons Cyrus, the bishop of Phasis, and having asked him this, he found him agreeing on one will and one energy." This [story]: "In this year, while the emperor was still staying at Hierapolis, Athanasius the Jacobite patriarch, a crafty and pernicious man, as are all the Syrians from their innate craftiness, approached him; and having stirred up conversations with the emperor about the faith, Heraclius promised that if he were willing to admit the Chalcedonian council, he would constitute him patriarch of Antioch. He, having announced two natures in Christ, while feigning heresy for the time, approved and received the proposed council. But then he asked the emperor about the operation and the will: what it was proper to assert, double or unique? The emperor, entangled by the novelty of the words unknown to him, writes to Sergius, bishop of Constantinople. He summons Cyrus, bishop of Phasis, and questions him, and finds him agreeing in like manner to a unique will and action," etc. The same things are plainly reported by Cedrenus, and the author of the *Miscellanea* (from Theophanes); the same by Zonaras, who however omits the name of Athanasius; the same finally by the *Acts of Saint Maximus*, which are read at the beginning of the Works of the same holy martyr.
D But truly, many difficulties have arisen among most learned men concerning these twofold congresses of Heraclius, with some indeed approving the testimonies of Sergius and Theophanes as certain, [while] others reject the narrative of Theophanes as interpolated and faulty. Franciscus Combelisius, in the *History of the Monothelites*, Pagius *ad annum* 629 in Baronius, [and] Basnagius, *Histoire de l'Eglise*, p. 542, either admit only one of these colloquies held by Heraclius, or establish that both were held with Paulus the Severian, but entirely exclude Athanasius the Jacobite patriarch. But Jacobus Goar, in his notes to the same Theophanes, Joannes Baptista Tamagninius in his *Hist. Monothel.*, and Assemanius in his *Dissertatio de Monophysitis* (vol. II of the *Bibl. Orient.*; and in *Bibl. Juris Orient.* lib. iv, p. 9) fight most invincibly for Theophanes, and distinguish the colloquy with Paulus from the colloquy with Athanasius. And we indeed willingly subscribe to the judgment of these, and we declare that Pagius condemned Theophanes too confidently. The things which Pagius and others object are these: I). Although the circumstances of places and times in the congress with Athanasius differ from that which Heraclius had with Paulus, nevertheless, most things show it to be the same. But truly if Heraclius in the year 622 in Theodosiopolis in Armenia had a colloquy with Paulus, and in the year 650, at Hierapolis in Euphratesia, with Athanasius: by what right might one wish to affirm from the fact that perhaps in both cases the same thing was discussed, that these are to be confounded into one, when there is such a great difference of times, places, and persons? II). Writers do not make mention of Athanasius, who however should not have passed it over in silence. Be it that Sergius in his epistle to Honorius did not name Athanasius; but did not Sophronius quite openly name him among the other heretics whom he condemns in his *Synodica*, read in the Sixth Council by Agatho the notary, in which these things are read: "Let them be anathema and a curse, Athanasius the Syrian, and the Apoxygares..."
Anastasius, and they who receive their inconvenient inconvenience inconveniently and ignorantly." A Theophanes wrongly said that Heraclius was struck by the novelty of the word, whose mind regarding the assertion of one will and operation in Christ had already long been open. But this very thing, as we shall declare below, had to be proven, namely that Heraclius, even when Athanasius the Syrian met him, had entirely perceived what Sergius was turning over in his mind.
IV.) The letter which Cyrus, bishop of Phasis, wrote to Sergius concerning this question at the command of Heraclius, he answers in the year 620; therefore that year, and not 630, as Theophanes likes, is when the second conference of Heraclius occurred, who was indeed staying in Lazica at that time. But we concede, not unwillingly, that the letter of Cyrus was written in the year 626, and that Heraclius had conferred with Cyrus during these times in Lazica: but from this we deny entirely that the conference with Athanasius is excluded.
V.) But the same Theophanes mistakenly reports that the Emperor opened his and Sergius’s and Cyrus’s mind in letters sent to Pope John; for John IV did not preside over the Roman Church before the year 640, and as is evident, he was placed there in place of Honorius: therefore, just as Theophanes took John IV for Honorius I, so also he took Athanasius the Syrian for Paul the Severian. We admit that these things are not narrated with sufficient distinctness by Theophanes, but besides the fact that perhaps no disadvantage would follow if we say that Heraclius, who lived until the year 641, wrote to John concerning Sergius and Cyrus, it is entirely certain that Theophanes—who is not clearly immune from the vice by which Greek writers suffer, namely that they attribute to one what belongs to many—for that reason referred all these things to John, because he knew that Heraclius had indeed written a letter to John (which is not confirmed regarding Honorius), in which the Emperor testified that he himself was not, but that Sergius was the author of the *Ecthesis*; which letter or command Saint Maximus reports in his *Collation with the Princes* in the secretariat.
VI.) Finally, it is false that Athanasius was the patriarch of the Jacobites, whom the author of the *Oriental Chronicle*, who compiled the catalogue of Jacobite patriarchs, does not mention. Assemani easily solves this difficulty of Pagius in his *Dissertation on Monophysitism*, saying that in that *Chronicle* he did not compile a catalogue of Syrian patriarchs, but of the Egyptians, or Alexandrian Copts, but that Athanasius, the Jacobite patriarch, by the surname Camelarius, is rightly found in the catalogue of Barsatibaei and in the chronicle of Bar-Hebraeus, being a contemporary of the Emperor Heraclius. B *Kephaliotes ton Acephalon poneras symporias*, the principal head of the wicked faction of the Acephali is named. By which words it is clearly designated even in the letter in which Cyrus replied to Sergius, *kephale ton Anepiskopon*, the primate of the non-bishops, that is, of those who are without bishops, or of the Acephali, and shortly therein he is declared *paulos*, that is, vile; just as already before, another disciple of Severus, James the Syrian, from whom the name and family of the Jacobites, *gazlog*, that is, a gnat, was called by the orthodox. From the dispute of Saint Maximus with Pyrrhus, page 185, we learn that this Paul was accustomed to remain in Theodosiopolis; for he says that Sergius wrote *pros Paulon ton Monophthalmon kai apo ton Severiton*, to Paul the One-Eyed and from the Severians, at Theodosiopolis. Thus Paul was the prince of the Severians or Acephali in Armenia, and he was, if I am not mistaken, distinguished by the surname of Monoculus (One-Eyed), because he was, beyond the rest, the most bitter enemy of the Chalcedonian council, and would see nothing everywhere unless it pertained to Monophysitism. This, however, I conjecture from Anastasius the Sinaite, who called the whole sect of Severus "Monoculus"; for he inscribed chapter 6 of his *Hodegos* thus: *Pothen he monophthalmos Severou pistis eblastesen?* Whence did the one-eyed faith of Severus sprout? Why this name was imposed upon the Severians, the same man seems to have declared in chapter 13, saying, *oi airetikon paides eoikasin monophthalmois tisin anthropois, ta men ton Pateron, ta de paroron tes*, heretics are indeed like to certain one-eyed men, seeing some things of the Fathers, but passing over others. Therefore, that a dispute was initiated with this Paul, when Heraclius first burst into Armenia against the Persians, namely in the year 622, is witnessed by Sergius, whose authority, if I am not mistaken, is confirmed by Pisida, who, regarding the deeds reported to have been done by Heraclius in his first expedition, says in poetic style that the Emperor had there uncovered the mysteries of iniquity and the author of the error, from whom he clearly does not know how that impious man could have been able to escape saved. For thus it is read in the *Acroasis on the Expedition*, v. 349:
Now indeed the mysteries of the Persian error
Come forth naked: recently the many-headed
Hydra of error hidden among them
Dares to stretch forth one neck,
Which now seeing we wonder
That it chanced upon Hercules and was saved.
That neck, that head, which the hydra hidden among the Persians already finally stretched forth, was Paul: for the Persians cherished whosoever were heretics, and all the sects of the Acephali, that they might even by this evil art hinder Roman affairs. Nor indeed was Chosroes the second of this name, called Abruiz, who then reigned in Persia, only favoring the Nestorians, as it pleased some to affirm, but he promoted with his favor as many as were dissenting from the orthodox; for as Pisida says in verse 47 of this poem:
For it was not, it was not for the profane Chosroes
To move arms against us even unto our bodies;
But he rather desired to wound the hearts,
Setting our faith on fire, as the cities.
Such was not the mind of execrable Chosroes, that he should move arms only against our bodies. But rather he desired to wound the hearts, devastating our faith, as the cities. Furthermore, as it seems, our poet was persuaded that for this reason Chosroam new dispute... C D
stirred up fire among the Christians, being the author of the disturbances by which it was then troubled, while the Monophysites or Acephali applauded; since he says at v. 40:
*If for our sake the Word becoming flesh* *Kindles impious sparks among us:* *How is it permitted to the leaders of error* *To dogmatize a Centaur-formed image?*
Which could easily have happened to Chosroes, who already occupied all of Mesopotamia, Syria, and Egypt; and he appointed bishops over the churches, as he knew which men were more confirmed in the heresy of the Monophysites, as though he were the greatest pontiff of error, v. 57.
*And he, as a mystagogue of error, ordained* *The leaders of Severus's plots.*
Certainly, at that time there was no lack in the whole East of the followers of Eutyches and Severus, who willingly received themselves into the patronage of Chosroes and rejoiced to be fortified by his authority: for the Monophysite plague had already spread far and wide through all Syria, Armenia, Cilicia, and Mesopotamia, having been propagated in these regions with the greatest zeal by Barsumas the archimandrite and his disciple Samuel, by Severus of Antioch, and by Jacob Zanzalus or Baradaeus, the invader of the Church of Edessa, and by very many others, whom Assemanius enumerated in the cited *Dissert. de Monophys.*
Since it is certain that things were so, it seemed ridiculous to us that Tamagninus, page 25, says: "Heraclius, in order to inflict something serious upon Chosroes, favored Eutychianism more than was right, as one who was most of all opposed to the Nestorians, whom Chosroes favored": a conjecture which Peter Bayle, in *Diction. hist.*, under the entry "Nestorius," did not realize to be most shallow. For the first thing is false, that Chosroes favored the Nestorians over other heretics; for Chosroes pursued with his favor all who might be in any way hostile and grave to the Romans, nor was he as concerned—as is indeed most likely—about the controversies that had arisen among Christians, whatever they might have been, as he was that quarrels and tumults might be fomented among the Romans. For in this way, who could say that Chosroes also favored the Jews, seeing that he permitted them, as Theophanes bears witness, p. 252, to slaughter ninety thousand Christians? This would be altogether foolish. Therefore, since the Monophysites were then flourishing most of all, and there was no longer a question of the Nestorians, we shall perhaps rightly affirm with Pisida that the King of the Persians favored the former rather than the latter.
Furthermore, it is false that the Monophysites were in the greatest opposition to the Nestorians. They did indeed strive to show themselves entirely alien from Nestorius, but when they spoke of natures as hypostases, they seemed in a way to agree almost with the Nestorians; which was indeed thrown in their teeth more than once, as we have noted above when we were treating of the tenets of Severus. Finally, it is false that Heraclius favored the Eutychians; for it is evident from Pisida that he was hostile to all heretics, and especially to the Monophysites, on account of his utmost piety.
Although Theophanes, p. 263, says that Chosroes in the year 625, so as to make something annoying for Heraclius, forced all Christians into the society of the Nestorian heresy, and that Heraclius in the year 629 restored the Church of Edessa, occupied by the Nestorians, to the orthodox, one would err just as shamefully who either supposed that the former was done by Chosroes to support the Nestorians, or that the latter was admitted by Heraclius to promote the Monophysite cause. For besides the fact that Pisida persuades us of the complete opposite, those words of Theophanes must be taken in a broad sense, in that, so as not to appear overly diligent in recounting the diverse kinds of heretics stirred up by Chosroes against Heraclius, he encompasses them all under the one common name of Nestorians.
For it is certain that Monophysitism was then widely spread, and that Jacob, a disciple of Severus, had already invaded Edessa: so that one may now begin to suspect whether one should rather believe Elmacin, who in *Hist. Saracen.*, p. 14, relates that it was not Nestorians but Jacobites who were recalled by Heraclius to the orthodox faith: "Then Heraclius departed for Ruham; but Ruha in Arabic is Edessa, and he ordered the Christians to return from the Jacobite sect to the orthodox; which they did."
Christianus Lupus in *Dissert. de vi synodo*, Oper. vol. III, p. 7, says that the disputation of Heraclius with Paul Monoculus was entirely synodal and took place in the presence of Cyrus, Bishop of Phasis, metropolitan of the Lazi, and that in it the Armenians were ordered to expunge the addition to the Trisagion, to accept the Synod of Chalcedon, to depart entirely from Eutyches, and to be united in full communion with the Greeks: which things are indeed taken from Clement Galanus's *Historia Armena*, chap. 13.
But the anonymous author whom Galanus illustrates says that a council was held in the city of Charno in Greater Armenia, by order of Emperor Heraclius, who summoned to it all the bishops and princes of Armenia, together with Jesere their patriarch, and also many wise men of the Greeks, to whom, after a month-long conference and most diligent examination, all the aforementioned Armenians consented: but he does not say that Cyrus of Phasis was present at this council and disputed against Paul Monoculus; rather, another prominent Acephalus, plainly different from Paul, is indicated in that book, namely John Maracumensis, who alone opposed everyone, and was condemned, sent into exile, and inscribed in the number of heretics.
That mention of this council, held in Armenia (under Emperor Heraclius and Patriarch Jesere), in which the Armenian Church was reconciled with the Greek, is found in many books of the Armenians is testified by the same Galanus, but he, being ignorant of the year in which it was done, thought it happened then when the emperor again set out into Armenia, namely in the year of Christ 623. But against the anonymous Armenian whom Galanus published, there is opposed the anonymous Greek whom Combefis brought into the light, *Hist. Monoth.*, p. 271. For in this it reads thus: At which time, Heraclius in the 20th year of his reign, and in the fourth year from the death of Chosroes, ordered a great synod to be held of all the bishops and doctors of Greater Armenia, together with the Catholicos Esdras, and all the Azoti, at Theodosiopolis, in order to make an inquiry and to see concerning the two natures in Christ, and concerning the Synod of Chalcedon. They questioned therefore for a month of days, and the Armenians were persuaded from the Scriptures. "At that time Emperor Heraclius, in the 23rd year of his reign and the fourth from the death of Chosroes, ordered a great synod of the bishops and doctors of Greater Armenia to be held at Theodosiopolis, having summoned the Catholicos Esdras and all the Azoti, to seek and look into the two natures in Christ and the Synod of Chalcedon. Therefore, they searched for a month, and the Armenians were induced by the Scriptures to the faith."
As regards the substance of the matter, both anonymous authors agree: for in Jesere, the name Esdras seems to have been substituted. But by what reasoning one might wish to confuse this synod with the disputation of Paul, I simply do not see; for Heraclius was indeed present at the disputation, but was not present at the synod; but he ordered it to be held by the bishops in the city of Charno, as the Armenian rightly says, not at Theodosiopolis, as the Greek writer affirms, deceived by the fame of the name. And the Charnense council is indeed famous among the Armenians, but the Theodosiopolitan is altogether unknown. However, since the Greek clearly designates the time, with the Armenian replying nothing against it, the belief is to be denied him in this…
A point. Therefore, if neither the place, nor the time, nor the person is the same, Galanus and Lupus, relying on weak arguments, do not seem to have distinguished the disputation of Heraclius with Paul from the Armenian synod; especially since a difference of ten years intervenes, for the twenty-third year of the reign of Heraclius, expressed by the anonymous Greek, falls in the year of Christ 633; nor is it entirely consistent that the emperor, who had previously been occupied with the greatest cares of war, could have been free to hold so solemn a council; which, however, he could very easily have done after the peace was settled with the Persians, namely in the year 633 noted by the anonymous Greek. But Lupus rightly asserted that Cyrus was present at the disputation; for when Heraclius was in Lazica, of which Cyrus was then metropolitan, there is no doubt that Paul was refuted before him; for Sergius himself makes this point in his letter to Honorius, saying: *Imperator... recordatus est disputationis, quam fecerat ad Paulum illum hæreticum, in præsentia Cyri sanctissimi.* (The Emperor... recalled the disputation which he had held against that heretic Paul, in the presence of the most holy Cyrus.) Therefore, I will not deny that that disputation, over which the metropolitan of the Lazes presided, was carried out under a kind of synodical form, but I will by no means concede that it is to be confused with the council of B Chalcedon. And as far as can be gathered from Pisida, in this Lazic synod the Acephali were condemned along with Paul: for verses 60 and 61 seem to signify this: *In eos autem immisso piissimo telo,* *Ipso jactu mactavit infidelitatem.* (And having launched the most pious weapon against them, by that very blow he slaughtered the infidelity.) For what indeed could that pious weapon be, with which Heraclius pierced the Acephali, if not the sentence passed against them, with his own approval? But this happened, if it must be said to have occurred, in the year 622, because Pisida deals there with the first expedition against the Persians, through the course of one year of which Heraclius returned to Byzantium. But Sergius fully agrees with Pisida in the cited epistle to Honorius, who records in that year the disputation held with Paul, of which he says the emperor was reminded after some time. But those who reject the colloquy with Athanasius are accustomed to refer to the time when Heraclius went a second time into Armenia those things which Theophanes hands down as having been done some years later, and they mix all things done before and after into one. For they say that the question concerning the wills and operations of Christ was then proposed to Cyrus by Heraclius, who, however, had written a mandate, or epistle, C to Arcadius, the archbishop of Cyprus, against Paul the One-Eyed, *duas operationes in Domino nostro Jesu Christo, ut post unitionem dicatur, prohibentem* (forbidding that two operations in our Lord Jesus Christ be spoken of, as [it is said] after the union), as can be read in the letter of Cyrus, then bishop of Phasis, to Sergius. But since this letter of Cyrus, which was read in the sixth synod by George the deacon in the year 681, is stated to have been written *ante quinquaginta sex annos* (fifty-six years before), they rightly infer from it that it was given at the beginning of the year 626. Therefore, with this method of reckoning, they conclude that Cyrus was interrogated by Heraclius in the same year. But how could it happen that the emperor, who shortly before is said to have ordered Arcadius that two operations should not be spoken of in Christ, would then for the first time interrogate Cyrus, while Cyrus, who had been present at the disputation with Paul, halted in doubt, and judged it necessary to write to Sergius? How could Heraclius, who during those times was already pressing Chosroes more closely with arms, be able to deal in Lazica in Armenia on ecclesiastical controversies *synodice* (synodically) with Cyrus? And if Sergius, as Saint Maximus testifies in his *Disputation with Pyrrhus*, p. 183, made the doctrine of Paul the One-Eyed approved, how does he call him an impious man, and why did he strive to reconcile to himself one whom he knew had been condemned at the command of Heraclius? Finally, if Paul the One-Eyed is the same person as Athanasius the Syrian, as Pagius doubted, how did it happen that one and the same man was condemned under the name of Paul, and appointed patriarch of Antioch under the name of Athanasius? These things indeed seemed to us very obscure and beset with many difficulties, as they earlier appeared even to Combefis, who plainly attacked the narrative of Theophanes with certain arguments, but finally hesitating in his *Hist. Monoth.*, p. 6, concluded: "More things must be devoured here, and it would be clearly welcome if someone produced a more digested account." Pagius thought he had entirely cleared himself of this care, led by those arguments D which we have refuted above. But truly, as is our opinion, another way must be established so that so many difficulties may be dissolved. Moreover, the entire elucidation of this matter depends on one single letter of Sergius to Honorius, and whoever perceives how artfully and subtly that was written will understand that all things become plain and manifest. Therefore, the malice of Sergius must be unmasked, and from the darkness of his frauds, the light of history must be brought forth as much as can be done. Sergius, according to Theophanes, p. 274, was a Syrian by parentage and born of Jacobite parents, he never abhored the doctrine of the Monophysites, with which he had imbued his mind from his tender years, but covering his extreme malice with the simulation of supreme piety and doctrine, he became patriarch of Constantinople after the death of Thomas in the year 608. He, when Heraclius had gained the empire two years later, devoted every care, as it seems, to favor the Monophysites when the opportunity was seized. But when he saw the emperor firmly clinging to the decrees of the council of Chalcedon, he understood well that his will must be swayed by craft and guile, wherever he wanted. Therefore, when he had commended himself to him by any services of virtue, and had removed every suspicion from himself, he inflamed his mind with the hope of glory, which he promised him he would certainly attain if he reunited so many dissident heretics among themselves and restored the divided body of the Church to its integrity. The emperor, who on account of his supreme zeal for piety would have desired nothing more than to be honored with the title of *eirenikos* (peacemaker) in those things which concerned religion, occupied with the greatest cares of the state in which he was then embroiled, left that whole task untouched to Sergius, of whose faith he did not doubt in the least. He indeed willingly accepted it, but then for the first time dared to open his mind to his friends and to instill the poison of Monothelitism secretly, commending to others testimonies of the Fathers collected, or rather corrupted, by himself, whether by letters or by forged documents. Hence that book brought by Mennas, hence those mandates issued in the name of Heraclius, hence those sentences of the Fathers either mutilated or distorted, hence finally the various letters written to and by Sergius. For, as we read in the *Disputation of St. Maximus*, p. 183, Sergius, having first sent a libellus through Sergius Macarones, bishop of Arsinoe, to Theodore of Pharan, asked what he himself felt concerning "one operation and will," and Theodore, who is said to have been the first parent of the Monothelites, approved what was contained in that libellus; then indeed the same Sergius wrote about the same matter to Paul the One-Eyed in Armenia, to Arsas the Paulianist in Alexandria, and finally to Cyrus in Lazica, sending to everyone the libellus of Mennas signed by his own hand and that of Theodore of Pharan. From which it is concluded that Sergius used supreme artifice, both to open his mind to those on whose suffrage he could rely, and to circumvent the emperor, Heraclius, whenever he turned, when he was called away from wars either into Armenia or into Persia. And so, if I am not mistaken, these things were thus arranged and acted by Sergius. When he had already tried Theodore of Pharan and Arsas the Paulianist for the first time, he immediately...
A Paul the Monocle, and Cyrus, bishop of Phasis, B to rectify the faith; however, he declined the edict [forbidding] that two operations be spoken of in Christ. But it seems Cyrus also suspected that Sergius was the author of the edict; for he says that at the bidding of Heraclius he had read through the suggestion of Sergius, “which was said to be, and was thought to be, a rescript of the aforementioned pious edict; for it made mention of that pitiful Paul, but also of the prototype of the edict, and it admitted the intent of those things which had been written in it.” The suggestion, as it appears, was a kind of encyclical, by which Sergius commended the edict supposed by Heraclius to Cyrus and other bishops. The suggestion and the edict had the same sense and the same end. The suggestion confirmed what the edict commanded, so that it might be said and thought to be a copy. But who will now doubt that Sergius was the author of both documents, who also, some years later, did not blush to foist the Ecthesis upon Heraclius? But neither in the edict nor in the suggestion did Sergius dare to assert openly that Heraclius had spoken about one operation against Paul the Monocle; for both Heraclius, and Cyrus, and Paul, and others would have immediately rejected that as false. But, as Cyrus says, mention of Paul was made in those writings only because that dispute was the occasion for the writing of the edict. But Sergius insidiously added that [claim] when writing to Honorius, as much to remove all suspicion from himself, as to protect himself with the name and patronage of Heraclius, whom he was striving to foist upon the pontiff as the primary architect of the new heresy, so that he might add faith, authority, and strength to his cause. And that it was done and contrived by Sergius for this very purpose is, if I am not mistaken, proven by the very reading of the letter; for those words, *in which he also made mention of the one operation of Christ*, scarcely cohere with the narrative, and they seem to have been added only with the intention of transferring the odium of the error onto Heraclius, who at that time was ignorant of the whole matter. Nor do other writers who have discussed this argument show this suspicion to be vain; for all, giving no credence to the words of Sergius, have handed down that it was not Paul who was interrogated by Heraclius, but Heraclius who was interrogated by Paul, or by Cyrus, or finally by Athanasius. Therefore, a double malice is to be noted in Sergius: first, that in the edict against Paul directed to Arcadius he put forward, at his own discretion, a judgment against those who professed two operations in Christ; then, that in the letter to Honorius he wished to constitute Heraclius as the prince and inventor of Monothelitism. If these things are considered to be sufficiently proven, it will be clear that neither in the dispute against Paul, which was held in the year 622, nor in the conversation with Cyrus, which was held in the year 626, did Heraclius favor—being completely ignorant of it—the new controversy concerning one operation, which Sergius was striving to propagate secretly and by stealth. For in this one point Heraclius is truly to be blamed, that he placed too much trust in Sergius, whom he thought to have devised the edict not for exciting new disturbances in the Church of God, but for settling old ones. And these, indeed, were the first steps, and as it were the progress, by which Sergius abused the benevolence of the emperor and the simplicity of men. Meanwhile, as Heraclius was concerned only with Chosroes, Sergius testifies to Honorius that for several years nothing was done in this matter, saying, “and from that time on such a chapter took on silence,” that is, from the year 626, which silence it was attempted to falsely misinterpret.
A Pagius, in his attempt to prove the falsity of the accounts concerning the meeting of Heraclius with Athanasius against Theophanes, maintains that this very silence lasted from the year 626 to the year 633, at which time Cyrus, having already become bishop of Alexandria and a Monothelite, sanctioned certain decrees in the Alexandrian synod in favor of Monothelitism. This, however, is entirely false: for who could believe that Sergius, to whom this matter was so close to his heart, and who during this very span of time strove to win over Paul, Cyrus, Athanasius, and others to his party, had remained silent for nine whole years? But Pagius allowed himself to be deceived by the letter of Sergius, in which events are recounted with the order of times either intentionally confused or not explained as clearly as they are. For after explaining the matters which Cyrus had decreed at Alexandria to strengthen Monothelitism, Sergius immediately added: ̓Αρτίως ὁ Δεσπότης κατὰ τὴν ̓Εδεσσῶν διατρίβων πόλιν, πανευσεβῆ κεραίαν ἐποιήσατο πρὸς ἡμᾶς παρακελευομένην, ἵνα τὰς πατρικὰς παρεκβάλωμεν χρήσεις, τὰς ἐμφερομένας τῷ γενομένῳ, ὡς εἴρηται παρὰ τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις Μηνὰ πρὸς τὸν ἁγιώτατον Βιγίλιον δογματικῷ περὶ μιᾶς ἐνεργείας καὶ ἑνὸς θελήματος. “Recently our Lord, while staying in the city of Edessa, sent pious letters to us, commanding that we should strip away those ancestral testimonies which are contained in the dogmatic book, as was said, made by Menas of holy memory to the most holy Vigilius concerning one operation and will.” But we are not asking what was done after, but what was done before the Alexandrian synod. For Heraclius, even before Cyrus had been transferred to the Alexandrian see, could have written to Sergius, and he wrote to him quite plainly when he was questioned by the Syrian Athanasius. For it is certain: 1) That Heraclius, after peace had been established with the Persians, turned his attention to dealing seriously with ecclesiastical matters; which, besides Theophanes, Pisida affirms in verse 72: Ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ νῦν τοῦ γαληναίου τρόπου Ἡ πρακτική τε καὶ σοφὴ στρατηγία Πρὸς τὰς Γραφὰς μετῆλθεν ἐκ τῶν Βαρβάρων. *Since even now, of that serene way,* *The practical and wise generalship* *Has turned from the Barbarians to the Scriptures.*
11.) It is established that this same Heraclius came to Hierapolis in the year 630, after Edessa had been restored to the Catholics, where all the Greek writers after Theophanes report that a second meeting with Athanasius was held. 1.) That Cyrus was not made bishop of Alexandria before the year 633; moreover, it has been discovered that Sergius’s letter to Honorius was written at the beginning of the year 634. IV.) No one, however, has denied credit to Theophanes in the fact that he says Heraclius discussed the matter with Cyrus of Phasis and Sergius. Therefore, it seems to me that the meeting with Athanasius, which is under dispute, is correctly recorded in this year 630, because the circumstances of place, time, and persons correspond well. For I easily persuade myself that Heraclius, at that time fully intent upon the pacification of the Church, could have both conversed with Athanasius D and summoned Cyrus to himself and written to Sergius, so that he might understand what had been done regarding the matter and in what state the matter itself remained, as if the cause were then being born anew, which Sergius had taken upon himself up to this year; for to his judgment and nod the emperor had previously entirely surrendered and accommodated himself. But as far as Cyrus is concerned, the times must be distinguished so that every difficulty might be removed: for Heraclius had a conversation with him about the controversies of the faith three times; first, at Theodosiopolis in the year 622, when there was a dispute with Paul; second, in Lazica in the year 626, when Heraclius said that it should be written to Sergius concerning the new question; third, at Hierapolis in the year 630, when the emperor, having been questioned by Athanasius and being entirely ignorant of what he should reply in return, called Cyrus to him so that he might know what his opinion was. Then indeed it happened that the mutual B deception of the three men, Cyrus and Sergius, were led into error B in their consensus to be drawn into error, Heraclius, who at that time might seem to have first attributed something to Monothelitism: not indeed because he was intent on increasing and nourishing an error, but because, trusting too much in Sergius and standing by his judgment, he thought the opinion proposed by him was more opportune for uniting rather than splitting the Church. For if he had ever truly approved of the Monothelites and their dogmas, he would by no means have permitted Sophronius, than whom no one opposed Cyrus and Sergius more sharply, to be substituted in the place of Modestus, the bishop of Jerusalem, who died in the year 635, nor would he have declared in express words to John IV that the *Ecthesis*, which Sergius later published under his name, was not his own. Therefore, not even then, nor even afterwards, was it sufficiently known and perceived by Heraclius toward what the prevailing controversy was tending, and how much inconvenience it was going to bring upon the Church. Wherefore Theophanes rightly said that he was *xenophonēthenta*, or “struck by the novelty of the term,” when he was questioned by Athanasius; because, as has been said, absolutely nothing had been done previously regarding this controversy with Paul the Monocle, and the emperor refrained from debating with Cyrus in Lazica because he was impeded by war, and said only that Sergius ought to be consulted for the present: but when, in the meeting with Athanasius, he was seriously engaged in dealing with ecclesiastical matters, and, from the question proposed, felt himself as if compelled to form a definition (for, as Theophanes narrates, Athanasius asked him strictly, *“How is it proper to state these things in Christ, as double or as unique?”*), *xenophonētheis*, or “entangled by the novelty of the term,” he hesitated, and thought he must take care not to decree anything by his own judgment. Therefore, that which Sergius narrates in his letter to Honorius, that Heraclius, while staying at Edessa, had requested that the testimonies taken from the book of Menas be sent to him, is either entirely false, or at least occurred three years after the meeting with Athanasius was held, which meeting Pagius in vain tries to convince us is a fabrication, though we admit this conversation was entirely different from that which Heraclius had with Paul. Nor do we think the narrative of the old synodical letter, upon whose authority C El. Bartholus relies, is so highly to be valued that the points brought forward by us should be rejected. For it is evident that in this letter, those things which relate to the first origin of Monothelitism, and its author, are recounted confusedly and indiscriminately, and one who, having drawn from the letter of Sergius, either corrupted or certainly fabricated with evil intent, recorded them less accurately in writing: for thus he says: *“Suddenly Heraclius, having taken up from the West, having killed Phocas, took the empire, and having begun the war against the Persians from God, he seized the river Phasis, where a certain one of the Acephali brought a question to him concerning the wills and operations. Which question, having communicated it to Cyrus, the bishop of Phasis, both being at a loss, they informed Sergius of Constantinople about it.”* Suddenly Heraclius after coming from the West, when Phocas was killed, seized the empire, and with the war against the Persians having been undertaken by divine aid, he occupied the river Phasis; where a certain one of the Acephali brought a question to him concerning the wills and operations. This question indeed, when he had communicated it with Cyrus the bishop of Phasis, and both were doubting, they reported these things to Sergius of Constantinople. Which things, indeed, although they are related as if poured forth in one spirit, it is clear from the arguments adduced that they do not agree with each other. Unless we wish to notice here also that Sergius indeed affirms that Paul was questioned by Heraclius, *“and he made mention of the energy,”* whereas the writer of the letter claims the opposite, that *“a certain one of the Acephali brought the question to him,”* that a certain one of the Acephali had moved a question for the emperor; which we have already shown above is more likely to be true. And these things indeed, as the opportunity allowed, have been declared.
A Then follows the meeting of Heraclius with Athanasius for its confirmation.
However, although these conjectures seem to us strong enough to prove that these iambics were composed against Athanasius, the patriarch of the Jacobites, we do not wish for it to be conceded to us as if no doubt could arise that the person who Pisida attacks under the name of Severus was someone other than Athanasius. For if anyone wishes that it is not Athanasius, but John of Marash who is being aimed at here—whom the Armenian History, as has already been said, narrates was condemned at the Council of Charnum by the order of Heraclius and inscribed among the number of heretics—this we will certainly allow. The times almost coincide; for the council in Armenia, as we noted above from the anonymous Greek author against the Christian Lupus, was held in the year 633, when Heraclius was safely and with the highest will of his mind applying himself to the arrangement of ecclesiastical affairs; and Pisida could easily have looked back to those things which were being done either before or after this council. But I confess that the argument taken from the mention of the place makes me believe that Athanasius the Syrian rather than the Armenian John is being indicated here; for Heraclius was not present at the Synod of Charnum, and Pisida represents the emperor to us as staying in Syria, and not far from him with whom the matter was being transacted.
But whether it was Athanasius, or John, or whoever else from the sect of the Acephali it was whom Pisida sharply attacks (for one may conjecture, but we cannot define), that is clearly proved enough from the reading of this poem: that neither did Heraclius at that time favor Monothelism, nor had the Monothelites themselves yet brought themselves and their dogmas forward into public. For nothing at all occurs which could be drawn toward the question of one operation and will. Hence it shines forth more clearly and more openly what the malice of Sergius was, who, abusing the clemency and goodness of the prince, was beautifully and craftily striving to thrust his own errors under his name upon the incautious, and to bring Heraclius himself into his own opinion. For how could Pisida, who discourses with caution about the controversies flourishing through that age and about Heraclius’s solicitude and care regarding them, not even have touched upon that which he would already have known to be widespread, or which he would have hoped would be pleasing to Heraclius and Sergius, whom he was striving not only to please but also to agree with? But you may read and peruse the whole poem, and you will find absolutely nothing that either savors of or inculcates Monothelism, but you will feel that all of Pisida’s arguments are turned toward the overthrowing of Monophysism. This, indeed, agrees well with those things which the historians report; for neither was anything done about Monothelism at the Council of Charnum, nor was there any disputation about that matter in the meeting with Athanasius, but, as Theophanes narrates in the place often cited, Heraclius persuaded Athanasius with great promises to embrace the Council of Chalcedon; he, however, D *hypocritically received the synod, having confessed two natures in Christ*; then indeed he moved the question concerning one operation to the emperor. Wherefore, it seems, if there was any dispute between Athanasius and Heraclius, it turned not upon Monothelism but upon Monophysism, and the question concerning one operation was proposed only incidentally at the end, though with purpose. Therefore, even from Pisida’s silence regarding Monothelism, the fraud of Sergius is detected, who secretly and covertly was directing the whole matter, and, where it was necessary, was preparing protection for error from Heraclius, under whose name he sold his own writings with impunity, so that he might arrive at where he wished. Why, then, should we not affirm this, when Pisida not only says nothing at all about Monothelism, but also testifies that several of the arguments he brings forward against Severus or the Acephali are drawn from the commands and decrees of Heraclius, and declares that he himself was taught by him and incited to write
A words, had he known that this was pleasing to Heraclius.
Therefore, I am confirmed in the opinion which I expressed above with many arguments, that everything up to this time, namely the year 630, was constructed and prepared by the craft and malice of Sergius in secret and hidden ways, so that the road might be paved for Monothelitism: so plainly that no faith can be placed in his writings on this matter. For, as it seems, he was careful not to publish to the common people the commands and decrees which were indeed composed by his own ingenuity but marked with the name of Heraclius, but rather by clandestine arts and counsels to send them to those whom he knew would very easily approve of his opinion. But this could not be in the least suspect to Heraclius, who, since he greatly revered the piety and doctrine of Sergius, and believed him to be entirely intent upon reconciling the sects of the Acephali, did not fear that his own faith would be assailed by the snares of a composed discourse. But Sergius was doing one thing and feigning another, by which fraud he at once deceived both Heraclius and the others. Hence, rightly did Saint Maximus in his *Disputation with Pyrrhus*, Vol. II, p. 182, detail his deceitful nature with detestation, saying: B *«Ἀλήθειαν λέγω, οὐδὲν οὕτω ἀποδιέθηκε με πρὸς τὸν πρὸ σοῦ, ὡς τὸ παλίμβολον αὐτοῦ, ἤγουν τὸ ἄλλοτε εἰς ἄλλας αὐτὸν μεταπίπτειν ἐννοίας, καὶ ἐν μηδενὶ βεβηκέναι φρονήματι»* — "I speak the truth: nothing made me so alienated from your predecessor Sergius as his double-dealing, that is, his habit of slipping at one time into one set of ideas and at another into others, nor remaining firmly fixed in any settled conviction." Nor does that same holy man merely accuse the cunning of Sergius, but he also openly accuses and condemns him as the author of the writings that were being circulated; for he says in the same place, p. 185: *«Τίς δὲ ἀνάγκη χάρτας προθεῖναι, καὶ σχίσαι τὴν ἁγίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ Ἐκκλησίαν;»* — "But what need was there to propose papers, and to rend the holy Church of God?" But Pisides, so far as we can understand from this poem, was not a participant in the secret counsel and frauds of Sergius; although it is certain that he did not fail to court his favor by the many praises heaped upon him elsewhere. For who would have remained silent about that, if he had read the commands and writings which Sergius was disseminating among his friends under the name of Heraclius? It is therefore evident, if I am not mistaken, that Pisides was clearly ignorant of what Sergius was plotting, and did not consider Heraclius to be an accomplice in that matter and fraud, but rather wrote this poem against the Monophysites, in order that, after he had adorned with his verses all those things which the emperor had accomplished in war, he might also include those things which he knew had been decreed for religion once peace was won. This he indeed expressed well enough in those senarii, in which he excuses himself for having treated the dogmatic controversies too dryly and jejunely, v. 695:
*Οὐ δογμάτων γὰρ ἔσχον ἐντριβεῖς λόγους·* D *Ἀεὶ δὲ ταῖς σαῖς ἐντρυφῶν στρατηγίαις* *Τῶν σῶν ἀγώνων ἐσκιαγράφουν λόγους.* *Non enim habui familiares dogmaticos sermones,* *Semper vero tuis delectatus expeditionibus* *Tua studui certamina adumbrare sermonibus.*
But however Pisides may have dealt with these matters (and he acted not inelegantly), it is to be lamented that he did not follow up on those things which Heraclius thereafter sanctioned by his own commands or decrees against the Acephali; for from that, I think, it would have been clearly evident that Heraclius never committed himself to seeming to approve of Monothelitism knowingly and willingly.
BY THE SAME AGAINST THE IMPIOUS SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH
A I see in truth a golden chain of heaven, Thy mind so wise toward us; For by the height of heavenly discourses Thou hast confirmed thyself; and from thee, in turn, All of us, thy children, hanging, Are lifted by thy sublime discourses Toward the upward heights of dogmas, Though we be weighed down by an earthly burden. For it was not likely, nor fitting to nature, To bring the supereminent nature to the scales, But, remaining within established bounds, To cover the many things in mystical silence. For if the Greeks, worshipping false gods, Thought their orgies worthy of silence, How much more is it not more equitable that the God of creatures B
NOTES
4. Celebrated is the golden Homeric chain, which Pisides appears to have had before his eyes. Jupiter, wishing that the gods themselves might understand, II. viii, 19, thus addresses them: *Catenam auream de cœlo suspendentes* *Omnes appendumini dii, deæque omnes:* *Sed non traxeritis ex cœlo in terram* *Jovem summum consiliarium, neque si multum laboraveritis.* *Sed quando jam et ego cupidus voluero trahere,* *Cum ipsa terra traxero, ipsoque mari.* Concerning the meaning of this chain, Plato thought differently in the *Theaetetus*, p. 752; Macrobius differently, in *Somn. Scip.* 1, 14; Lucian finally differently, in *Dialogo Jupp. confut.*, vol. II, p. 628. But it is clear that Pisides understood the supreme power of Jupiter to be foreshadowed in the Homeric chain, just as in that chain to which he recalls us, he indicates the extraordinary wisdom of the Emperor Heraclius in dealing with and explaining sacred matters, the power of which is attested to have been so great that all the Constantinopolitans hung from his mouth as if astonished, and allowed themselves to be drawn wherever he wished; a thing which indeed exceeds our belief.
9. All the Holy Fathers have warned that disputes concerning God, and the One and Triune, and the incarnation of Christ, are to be undertaken cautiously and soberly, lest, while we are seized by an excessive curiosity to know these things B which far exceed our capacity, we prepare ruin for ourselves. Rightly does St. Cyril of Alexandria, in his *Dialogues on the Trinity*, say: "Let curiosity now at last cease: for the Divinity is beyond understanding and speech." Indeed, as Gregory the Great testifies, *Moral.* xiv, 12: "The Holy Church more profitably strives to be ignorant of what it cannot investigate, than to define audaciously what it does not know."
11. "The boundaries are set" by the councils, especially the decrees and constitutions of the Synod of Chalcedon, from whose definitions concerning divine things it was and will always be a sin to depart. Furthermore, from new questions moved either by curiosity or by malice, new heresies have always arisen.
13. ...insofar as it would be lawful for the dogmas of the heathens to be known generally. Let Pythagoras be a witness, who, so that he might enter the inner sanctuaries and learn the mystical philosophy of the Egyptians, suffered himself to be circumcised, as Clement of Alexandria reports, *Strom.* 1, p. 354. Socrates is a witness, who, as is agreed from Plato, committed nothing to writing, lest his own thoughts be brought to the common people. But what shall I say of the sacred rites of the Gentiles, which were accustomed to be performed at night, and were open only to the initiated? Not to be long-winded, I pass over the testimonies on this matter, content with the authority of Horace alone, who feared that he might be drowned if he had taken as a companion of his journey a betrayer of the sacred rites of Ceres, *Od.* III, 2: *Vetabo, qui Cereris sacrum* *Vulgarit arcanæ, sub iisdem* *Sit trabibus, fragilemque mecum* *Solvat phaselum.*
Against Severus of Antioch
A Is it proper to revere them with more mystic silence? For he who weighs natures with discourse, how is it not absurd to investigate them in words, and to ask how, and what kind, and how many are the natures? And how they came together, and having come together, whether they remain separate or united? It was not even expected that these men would speak after [such] words, if he himself [viz., God] would not have endured the words. But it would have been better, having been freed from the storm of the Barbarians and from the armed tempest of their arrows, to be quiet along with the battles, which the most powerful Benefactor, having cut them away by the spiritual surgery through him, removed the worldly disease pulsating [in them], in which the cruelty of tyrants prevailed, and the fire of the Barbarians was godlessly kindled—until he stopped the spread of the wounds, having opened the veins of the blood. But since Chosroes, both living and dead, raised up for us the storms of war—partly stirred up toward impulses of slaughter, and partly appointing the leaders of the machinations of Severus, as a mystagogue of error—a great tragedy occurs against us. B
[Notes omitted]
A Since the Word became incarnate for our sake, He kindles impious sparks among us. As if it were granted to the leaders of error to teach a centaur-like image, which is nothing perfect in the natures from which it has coalesced; for both are needy, having suffered a fusion and a turn through the confusion. For it was not, it was not in the mind of the outlaw Chosroes to move arms against our bodies alone; but rather he wished to wound the hearts, burning up our faith, as he did the cities. B Thence, I think, the dragon permitted the accomplices of Severus to teach confusion: so that by his work, error itself might seem to exult among us, and provide more handles for mockery and ridiculous assemblies. But these things have vanished together with Chosroes, having reached a miserably ridiculous end. For the Master, forestalling them with a single dart, slaughters the former with the sword of God’s judgment, and having sent a most pious dart against the others, with that very throw He slew their infidelity. It would have sufficed, therefore, for that first dart either to soften the hearts of the infidels, or to cut off the error of many heads.
NOTE. Let them cease now, since it is by no means an opportune time, to stir up and collect such things. For the present time, because of our sins, is a time of blood and not of dogmas, and of strong lamentations by which we may incline God to mercy, not of sophistic counter-arguments by which we might kindle His greater wrath against us. C 41. It clearly declares that Chosroes had stirred up the fires buried under the Eutychian heresy, so that new questions concerning the incarnation of the Word might be moved against the Catholic doctrine. 42. It calls the Severians leaders of error, against whom Anastasius Sinaita had published his book, entitled *Dux viae* (Guide of the Way), already one hundred years ago, so that they might not fall into the nets and snares of the error. 45. The following iambics contain the argument by which the doctrine of Eutyches regarding one nature out of two in Christ is undermined. For if the human and divine nature are not kept unconfused, one nature will be formed from humanity and divinity, which would be neither entirely divinity nor entirely humanity; and thus it will be a certain nature composed of two, and a third thing, similar to a monster; as a centaur, which is neither entirely man nor entirely horse, or as a mule, which is neither entirely horse nor entirely ass. Furthermore, if a confusion of natures occurs in Christ, it is necessary that everything that pertains to these same natures be so mixed together that what is proper to either can no longer be distinguished; whence neither the divine can be distinguished from the human, nor the human from the divine. For if two natures are so confused that one is made out of two, it is necessary that there be a conversion and perturbation of one into the other: by which concession, Christ will no longer be perfect God and perfect man, perfect in deity and perfect in humanity, but something mixed and confused from deity and humanity, whose properties also will be mixed and confused. "They feign, therefore," says Leontius (*Dubitat.*, *hypot.*, in Canisius, t. I, p. 627), "an adulterous and confused one nature from two natures, such as the nature of mules and other such monsters [excogitated, and such as was the monster of multiform and contrary animals among the Gentiles]." See Anastasius in *Odegos*, Leontius, and Saint John Damascene *Against the Jacobites*. D 47. Procopius also judged this of the elder Chosroes, who had broken into Mesopotamia for the fourth time with his army: "Which incursion was made not against Justinian the emperor, nor against any mortal man, but against God, whom Christians alone worship." 50. See *Heracliad*, acroas. I, 55. 55. It may be confirmed, as we were saying above, verse 13, regarding the discipline of the arcana. 59. Compare *Heracliad*, I, 55 and following. 60. "To others," that is, rather, for whom there was an occasion for mockery, the Severian arguments having been refuted. Nor do I doubt that the poet alludes to the encounter which Heraclius had, while he was in Armenia, with Paul the Severian. 61. This is of the Magi, who, from the questions that were being agitated among the Romans concerning the incarnation, were seizing an occasion to mock the Christian religion. Truly, as it seems, he then pierced and slaughtered the Severians along with the Magi with the dart of his discourse. 62. The dart which the emperor hurled. But this dart was either a certain writing published in the name of Heraclius, or the condemnation of the Acephali. 63. *Of the infidelity*, that is, of the Magi.
GEORGIUS PISIDA AGAINST SEVERUS
A For many are the necks of the Acephali, Having divisions everywhere; And often they sprout, and when severed, They grow back into necks again like serpents. But we have Hercules as our benefactor, Who with the hot cauterizing-iron of faith, 70 Being inflamed, destroys the Hydras, The snakes that move in tortuous ways. Since now too, for the sake of the serene way, His practical and wise generalship Has turned from the barbarians to the Scriptures, 75 That, just as he persuaded the barbarians to be at peace, He might also persuade their heresies to be at peace; And, having piously received the Spirit, He rose up against the thorns of error, And with the intellectual antithesis of the Scriptures B 80 He spread out for us the God-written tablets, Which he held within his own heart, Not written with teachable syllables, But fashioned rather by the divine finger. And the conduits of the God-flowing words 85 He turned loose for us, like a certain Ocean, Which fills all things and has no end; It is not at all unseemly for the ship of eloquence, Filled from his abundance, To push against the surges of false opinions. 90 Perhaps, taking in the swirling counter-currents Of the mixed-spined thoughts of Severus, Either it will be added to the calm of the dogmas, Or, dancing its evil dance, It will return to the original care. C 95 For the present, then, O Severus, you who are mixed up (For to the master, I think, it first pertains To rebuke the disorder of the disciples), You who confound the world with divisions, Wishing to have nowhere a stable base, 100 But flowing away like a wavy slip, Exarch of this ten-horned dance.
D [alt-version omitted]
You who spue out swampy writings, Why, I ask, do you reproach me with the profane divisions Of the ever-delirious Nestorius, While you contend that you do not speak of division: 115 But from the opposite position you establish confusions? Either persuade him, or let him in turn persuade you: Or truly, having sanctioned a divorce between either party, Return to the straight path. For that is the sign of a right journey, 110 When one draws, and draws back from the contradiction Into the middle, those who stray through side-paths. O you who ever bring Cyril into the midst, While intending nothing of his doctrines: (For if, before you confused the natures,) 115 Cyril [was] not standing by with his holy tome: If he were present, there would be suspicion lest, for favor, The God-inspired ones [the Fathers] might have extolled him with praises, In which the Holy Spirit has testified He speaks. B
NOTES
101. *Syngraphae* are "swampy," that is, futile and empty booklets by which the Severians defended their opinion.
102. Since Nestorius, appearing to confound the two natures, would admit two hypostases in Christ, he was dividing Christ himself into two, *κέχωρισμένως* [separately], for he said that the Word existed separately in Him, and *κεχωρισμένως* the man. But while he would concede that the Word, the Son of God, was consubstantial with God the Father, yet he denied that He who was born of the Virgin was by nature the Son of God, and by nature God, he openly confessed two sons in Christ, one by nature, the other by grace, although very ingeniously and acutely he tried to show himself alien to the division he was introducing. Conversely, Eutyches, lest he be thought to divide two persons in Christ with Nestorius, asserted one nature from two, and said that nature and hypostasis were one and the same. For he held this as firm and ratified, *ὡς οὐκέτι φύσις ἀνυπόστατος*, that there is no nature without hypostasis. Eutyches, therefore, made the orthodox guilty of Nestorianism, because they, admitting two natures, divided Christ with the Nestorians. Which would clearly have been true, had the orthodox accepted hypostases alongside the natures with the Nestorians, or with the Eutychians confounded the hypostasis with the nature.
109. [They] should return to the straight path, which is placed in the middle. For the catholic dogma stands as a middle point between the Nestorian and Eutychian opinion, by which it is professed that there are not two hypostases, nor one nature from two, but two natures *ὑποστατικῶς* [hypostatically] united in Christ without confusion. Anastasius in *Ὁδηγῷ*, p. 64, and St. John Damascene, *Against the Jacobites*, p. 398, have demonstrated that the royal way—which the holy Church has taught us to walk—is that which opposes confusion in the divinity against Sabellius, and division in the Trinity against Arius. "The heralds of the orthodox religion and of the truth," says St. John Damascene, "walked rightly along the royal way, which is the middle... keeping themselves within the limits of truth, so that by inclining to neither side they would not deflect. Therefore they confessed one substance in the Trinity, and three hypostases... Again, they recognized that distinction in the mystery of the Incarnation, two natures and two substances, and one hypostasis; and they comprised nature and substance in the same definition, and in the same way defined person and hypostasis," etc.
111. *ἀντιλήξεως*. So it is in the codex. The corrector would have preferred it to be read *ἀντιλήξους*, and therefore inscribed a *ου* over the *ω*; which does not please me. I, for my part, would change the *η* into an *ε*, and read *ἀντιλέξεως*.
112. Eutyches said this in the Synod of Constantinople, in which he was condemned by St. Flavian. This same thing was later always repeated by the Severians, as is evident from the Collation of the Severians, regarding which matter it was spoken of in the *Monitum*. But our author rightly refutes Severus in passing, saying: "If Cyril was living, before you undertook to mix and disturb the natures, how can he be able to agree with you, or you with him?" For thus I understand verse 111, by supplying *ἐβίωσε*, or *ἔγραψε*, lived, or wrote.
115. Although there are many of Cyril's writings which most firmly establish the truth and holiness of the dogmas concerning the Incarnation, such as the epistles given to Nestorius, to Pope Celestine, and to Theodosius and Pulcheria, I nevertheless do not doubt that the Pisidian, by the words *θείῳ τόμῳ* [divine tome]—by which name booklets containing a profession of faith were called—indicates Cyril's second epistle to Nestorius above the rest of his books: for it was read after the Nicene Creed in the Council of Ephesus, and was much praised by the Fathers, and later was again approved in the Council of Chalcedon. It begins *Καταφλυαροῦσι*.
116. I believe this is to be read: "Because you most impudently allege Cyril as a patron, because he cannot be present: but if he were present, and you were to hear him being extolled with the praises of all the orthodox Fathers as being against you, then that suspicion would clearly arise for you, that these praises were given to Cyril *πρὸς χάριν* [for favor], and in appearance only, not however with a sincere heart."
117. When all these things relate to the Ephesian Council, they must be understood clearly as referring to the acclamations which were given by the Fathers to Cyril after the condemnation of Nestorius: as in the second action, when Peter the Alexandrian presbyter had read the letters of Pope Celestine, "All the most pious bishops together cried out: 'This is a just judgment... One Celestine; one Cyril; one faith of the synod, one faith of the world.'" *Collect. Conc. Hard.*, vol. I, p. 1471.
118. [The] Fathers gathered to celebrate the Mother of God, Mary, so that they might signify that Christ sat as president, wished the most holy Gospel of God to be placed in the middle on the throne, and in a conspicuous seat. The testimonies are of the orthodox...
A
120 One was the number, holding seven-folded, Running over ten into itself, the nines; A host gathered for the arms of the faith. For all these, by Cyril’s dogmas, Have tested the faith most accurately. 125 He who has insulted those who think with him, Openly appears to have insulted him also. In word, indeed, you pretend to honor the man, But in deed you flee, even if you seem to run with him. But accusing the one you agree with, 130 You openly hate the one you love in pretense. It is time now to commit the boat of your discourse To the storm-tide of your children. For tossed again by your bitterness, They strike against the rock, the Church; 135 And, overturned by the surge, they fall together, Driven back against their own tempest. From this, I suppose, in the abyss of their speculations, They seem to themselves to measure the divine nature, With weak reasonings, an essence beyond intellect, 140 In joining, and in dividing, unsteadily. For nothing fixed stands for them. And indeed they accuse the right-minded, As if, were we to wish to formulate "in two," We would bring in, as they say, two Sons. 145 For they hold that natures are as hypostases. And from this, as they say, at the phrase "in two," They spill away the hypostases, Fearing to speak of two in Christ. B
NOTES
...letters written to the emperors, in which they profess that all things were done rightly in the council, with the Holy Gospel which showed Christ as the Lord of all things placed in the midst (Ibid., Concil. Ephes., p. 1583). But, as it seems, Pisida here intends the letters of Pope Celestine written to the synod, the beginning of which is: "The congregation of the priests attests the presence of the Holy Spirit." For it is true what we read, since the Truth cannot lie, whose statement in the Gospel is this: "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Ibid., p. 1467)....the number of the Fathers who were present at the Council of Ephesus, not deterred by the difficulty of the meter, he strives to define. But, as it seems, he declares that xvi nines, that is, 144, was the number of the Fathers united with Cyril. But others report that they were 158, others 198, others 200, and others finally 210. Certainly Cyril, who held the primacy in that council in the name of Celestine, in his letter to the clergy and people of Alexandria, whom he informs concerning the deposition of Nestorius, says thus: "The bishops, however, who were gathered, were about two hundred, more or less" (Oper. Cyrill., t. V, part. ii, p. 79).
...that he cited the Monophysites is manifest. But he says they are stirred up by the bitterness, that is, the bitter waves of Severus; because all their errors emanated from one impure fountain of Eutyches and Severus, namely, from the natures in Christ being confused.
137. The codex has *xpoúst* against the standard of the meter.
...that he proves their foolishness, who, averted from the doctrine of Scripture and the Fathers, and immersed in the profundity of sophistries and futile commentaries, trusted so much in themselves, and dared, that they did not doubt to enter into minute reasonings about the divine nature according to the tenets of the philosophers, just as if it were a matter subject to the senses and human contemplation, about which it might be permitted for anyone to dispute at his own pleasure. For "to contemplate," as it is in the Dialectics of Saint John Damascene, cap. 65, is said to be "to investigate a matter, to apply oneself to astronomy, geometry, and the like."
...they did not refuse to say Christ after the union, but they were unwilling to confess it "in two" after the union, because, not distinguishing natures from hypostases, they rightly feared lest they be said to introduce two Christs: and that they might clear themselves of this very just accusation, they turned that charge upon the orthodox. Moreover, you have the profession of faith issued by Eutyches in Tom. II Conc. Hard., page 166, expressed in a few words: Since with the Severians nature and hypostasis were the same, as often as they heard the formula "in two" used by the orthodox, they preferred to understand hypostases rather than natures. But this was not the proper doctrine of the Severians, who altogether rejected the formula "in two" after the union.
147. ...who fear lest two be said in Christ, the same people admit two hypostases in Christ! Anastasius in *Odigos*...
A Lest it appear, he says, that through the communion of the two, the Triad is conceived by the mind as consisting of four persons. For since the nature of the three is one, Of the Father, I say, and of the Word, and of the Spirit, They declare the hypostasis of the three to be one. 150 How right, emperor, are your thoughts, Which the Spirit suggests to you! For from that—from that Spirit, indeed, Who has seemed to be your comrade everywhere, Before in war, and now against heresies, 155 But again, I turn my speech to you, Severus, To you who are sowing thorns with your words. For although you say the nature of the three is one, (Since the Triad is one nature,) 160 You always fail in your argument, if you introduce three natures, Or even if you assert three hypostases. And you are constrained, although you have said That the hypostases of the three persons are one, 163 And it does not seem so to you, O judge of the battle, But rather, I would say, the sower of the battle, The identity being preserved by the word "nature."
A In a triple, as you say, monarchy. But, come, tell me, you patcher-together of sophisms, Since the Scripture is set before us in common, And all agree on one sentiment: How is it that you twist the words as you please, And concerning things that please and things that do B not please you, You establish definitions, deciding as you wish? Man, neither steal the Scripture by scraping it out, Nor, likewise, add to the Scripture from your own [store]. Away with this gift of yours [drawn] from superfluous Letters: it brings me harm. Away with the shamelessly removed syllable, Which detracts from the divine essence. For you will show nothing in the approved Scriptures From these nonsense ravings which you vomit forth. But you rashly, in books prone to destruction, Scrape away, subtract, add, patch together: And you willingly lend a hand to wicked and subtle Confusion, and with a false writing You craftily weave deceits, not fearing the laws. It was necessary that there should come to these contentions The same man, who had been the sophist of error.
NOTE. 180. Examples of Severian fraud in corrupting books through addition and subtraction are exhibited by the same Anastasius, p. 90. Famous indeed is the impious addition made to the Trisagion while Severus was in Constantinople, by Peter the Fuller, who, after the words "Holy God, Holy Strong [One], Holy Immortal," added of his own: "who was crucified for us, and suffered." Regarding this interpolation of the Trisagion, see the same Anastasius, p. 98; St. John of Damascus, *De orthod. fide*, book III, chap. 10, p. 218, and *Epist. de Trisag.*, p. 480; and Gretser, *Fullo rediv.*, Oper. vol. XIII, p. 376.
169. By "trina monarchia," he refers to the Trinity of persons in one monarchy. I do not doubt that this phrase of Severus is such, for which there exists no argument among the Fathers, as far as I know; although they often use the simple word "monarchy" to prove against the pagans that there is one God, which St. Justin Martyr shows [in his work] *On Monarchy*. But I think that "trina monarchia" can be said just as "trinum Deum" can be said. Thus St. John of Damascus (*Contr. Jacob.*, p. 587) calls the Trinity [a Trinity] of one rule and one substance.
171. He understands "Common Scripture" not only as the Holy Bible, but also the codices of the councils, in which the formula of faith was defined. See Anastasius, pp. 45 and 55, who proves by the authority of the Old and New Testaments and by the testimony of the Fathers that nature is distinguished from person, and that two natures are rightly affirmed in Christ. But Severus turned everything upside down, and interpreted it according to his own whim.
176. We have shown how solicitous Severus was in corrupting the Scriptures, *supra* v. 166, from Anastasius, who often reproaches the Severians with the fact that they would not abstain even from the sacred Books themselves. He says (chap. 12, p. 96) that they are often corrupted by the wicked either by addition or subtraction: whence he rightly concludes: "If, therefore, they spare not even the sacred Letters, though alien to the orthodox faith, how much less will they abstain from the writings of the doctors?"
184. "Patribus" [the Fathers] often called "heretics" those who, receding from the doctrine received in the Church, established new definitions and interpretations in matters of faith: and indeed Anastasius for this reason names Severus more than once.
188. Regarding those who subtracted anything from, or inserted forged documents into, public tablets, the law commanded that their hands or fingers be cut off. Famous against Severus and the disciples of Severus is the sentence of the Emperor Justinian, who, in his sacred Constitution (*Concil.*, tom. II, p. 1406), having greatly complained of the great evils committed against the Church by Severus, says: "Wherefore we forbid everyone to possess anything of his books... the sayings and writings of Severus... are to be burned by fire by their possessors... they are not to be written by anyone... knowing that, because he wrote them, the penalty will be the amputation of the hands."
189. By "eristiken phusin" [contentious nature], [he refers to] the contentions and sophistic questions which Severus stirred up, denying the testimonies of the Fathers brought against him by the orthodox.
199. By "sophisten tes planes" [the sophist of error], understand Severus, who, when he was reduced by the Orthodox to the straits and power of his own argumentations and sophisms, and they felt that they had less to trust in, already seemed to be yielding; but he preferred to contrive frauds and to adulterate the writings of the Fathers, rather than [confess himself]…
A conquered; and being unable to defend his cause with arguments and testimonies, he did so at least with deceit and fallacies. Touching how rightly Severus thought in this, see below, p. 1 et seq., where it is explained briefly in the booklets presented by the monks of second Syria to the Emperor Justinian and to Patriarch Menas. Concil. tom. II, p. 1274 and 1285. To this [matter], I believe, Pisides alluding to his impious fraud, and how, when he was pressed by the force of arguments to yield, and seemingly to return to the path of sound reason, he immediately prepared new escapes for himself by new fallacies.
[Verse] But perhaps the putrid words he vomited, Thinking upon them by himself, he greatly feared For the things he wrote wickedly; for I do not say For the things by which he was ruined, having been pulled down. Like a viper, which having brought forth vipers, Is killed by its own offspring. He returns in mind, and again He says he is persuaded that in approved writings The voice is used, which is reprobated By all vituperation and rejected by Scripture. What, therefore, is handed down in the sayings of ancient Contemplators of God, how do you think it is to be refuted? Rather, as you say, you should embrace the well-spoken words! And now perhaps with your habitual craftiness, Like a base hare fleeing to its burrows, B You seek a pretext borrowed from Nestorius, That it is not right to use this voice after him. Truly, so that we may flee from falling into Impiety, as in his own line of reasoning. But I see you are a mystic of his wicked dogmas, Even if you seem to lie hidden. For if anyone says both hypostases, And you drowsily write down the dogmas, He runs openly into division, And he licks the Sons, and introduces two. But you will surely say that you immediately join them. NOTE. 195. Infamous crimes are recounted that were perpetrated by Severus, which are set forth briefly in the booklets of the monks of second Syria presented to the Emperor Justinian and to Patriarch Menas. Concil. tom. II, p. 1274 and 1285. 197. Severus must be noted as one who, when he was oftentimes pressed by arguments, was compelled to yield, and seemed to return to the path of standard reason, but immediately prepared new escapes for himself by means of new fallacies. 198. Eutyches always held this: 'I have not learned from the holy Scriptures about two natures.' Concil. tom. II, p. 158. But when he was pressed by holy Flavian in the Synod of Constantinople, so that he might openly profess two natures in Christ, he replied: 'Before this I did not say [it]; but now, since your holiness teaches this, I say it, and I follow the Fathers. Yet I have not found this clearly explained in the Scriptures, nor did all the Fathers say it.' But he was condemned for this feigned profession of faith. Severus, however, confessed that in some writings of the Fathers the phrase 'in two' is found, but that it is permitted to no one to use it, as being suspect and reprobated. 199. Voice, understand 'in two,' or 'in two natures' hypostatically united in Christ; which is the formula especially used by the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon against Eutyches, Dioscorus, and all the Monophysites, who from that time on were always opposed to the same council. 206. When the orthodox had prevailed against Severus in the writings of the ancient Fathers that two natures are asserted in Christ, then Severus replied: 'Many forms of speaking of the ancient Fathers, formerly used without any reproach, are, after Nestorius, no longer considered safe and secure.' And presently: 'We shall not allow the form of speech of our sense, if we make use of it. Moreover, in the time of Cyril, when the Nestorian pestilence and novelty were devouring the Churches, that diction was, for the most part, rejected and exploded.' These words are of Severus in Anastasius, in *Odegos*, p. 49, by whom they are most validly and abundantly refuted. 210. The Monophysite is reproached, the orthodox saying there are two, not one nature in Christ, since he differs from Nestorius; yet because he would not harbor this suspicion, that the formula 'in two' should be abstained from. Pisides well retorts the argument against the Monophysites, saying that they prefer to accede to Nestorius, if they prefer two hypostases to two natures in Christ, for he indeed says: that he openly professes two hypostases, and two sons. Moreover, as Anastasius says, refuting the Monophysite sophism, p. 64: 'The holy Church has reprobated the division of Nestorius, preaching one person in Christ; rejecting that confusion, and teaching: two natures, in one hypostasis, unconfusedly, and indivisibly, are one and the same Christ.' Anastasius abundantly refutes this objection of the Monophysites, p. 80.
A And why do you join and divide so quickly? For you always, as if laboring in an instant, mixing and dividing, will not refrain from error. B Frequently you twist your thoughts, like the teacher of an unchaste dancing girl, who, with lascivious flexions of her sides, contorts her body into various modes of movement, as you yourself know. For there is no one better than you. You have something in these matters to add, trusting in your master; but she, while merely distorting her limbs, disturbs her body: but the craftiness of your mind is far more wretched. For as you say, you understand in division that Christ exists, and you divide the natures with weak arguments; but you join them immediately, and you fly so far on the wings of your talent that you think you surpass the very substance of God. C But, if I am not mistaken, you will never cease to speak, now dividing, now wishing to bind, and saying that He is now simple, now composite; and certainly now He stands as one, and now as two. And thus you make your speech very plain, as you think, just as it seems to you concerning God incarnate. I am utterly amazed, how your inconsistent words always aim at the substance of God! But I, having become bold, perhaps not undeservedly, propose an extempore question to you. What do you think to establish: the Word, who is now at the right hand of the Father, existed as a man endowed with reason, or the Word alone? Or also a nature mixed from both? Or do you wish again to undo and to bind?
NOTE. 218. Recte, A in the resemblance of an atom, and using the word 'atom,' i.e., 'individual,' and the same as 'hypostasis,' which admits of no division. St. John Damascene, cap. 50, explaining the doctrine of the Fathers, says: "The holy Fathers called that which is common, and is said of many, i.e., the most special species, substance, and nature, and form... but that which is particular, they called individual, and person, and hypostasis." Whence in *De fid. orthod.* lib. iii, cap. 2, he thus determines: "It is therefore the same thing to speak of the nature of the Word, and of that nature which is in the individual." 221. I think the poet turns the discourse toward him, whom he attacks from the beginning under the name of Severus, as if saying that so great is the subtlety of his genius, or versatility, that he seems to surpass even the craftiness of the master Severus. 223. See below, v. 290. 238. I have rendered B as if Pisida had brought together a new word, *pezein* (to go afoot), for *paizein* (to play, to jest). But since no examples of this word support it, as far as I know, if anyone prefers to translate the word written erroneously in the codex as "to jest," it is permitted by me; and, as you think, the discourse concerning God incarnate is for you a jocular matter; which interpretation C Sophronius seems to confirm in his Synodica, read at the Sixth Council. For rightly distinguishing the natures and operations in Christ, he says: "Lest we force them into one essence and one nature, which is played with by the boys of the Acephali, and is impudently uttered in those very words, 'composite'." 241. They inanely chatter about the incarnation of the Word. Leontius, *Contra Nestor. et Eutychem*, p. 844: "These men speak so captiously, not to show a perfect man, but to calumniate the Lord, and to alienate Him from our salvation, as if He either had not assumed our humanity from the beginning, or had not preserved it unconfused, which from us had the pledge of the salvation of the whole nature, which could not fall away." 247. If the Word is at the right hand of the Father, D then He is not incarnated: but if there is a mixed nature, He is neither true God nor true man: but a certain promiscuous thing, which is neither of those things of which it consists. But it had also been objected to Eutyches before, which is clear regarding Severus, as is evident from the act of the Constantinopolitan synod read at Ephesus, and selected at Chalcedon, *Concil.* tom. II, pag. 206: "If you say out of two natures before the union, but after the union you say one absolutely, you will be thought to introduce confusion and commixture... If, however, you say one incarnate and humanized nature of God the Word, you say the same things to us and to the Fathers."
A Shutting and opening the supernatural doors? 250 You must be spinning! Why, returning Vertices, as in a turbulent sea, Do you turn them toward your own subversion? Why do you prefer to seem an astrologer against yourself, And to measure points and immense moments? 255 Hear then my stammerings, If it is hard for you to measure divine matters; Why do you not teach with us in two? But you always say, for the sake of the union: Before the union, indeed, you say in two. 260 "Not so," he says, "but a union from two into one." But saying those natures which are from two, You count therein two hypostases. But if you say this, and also call them two Sons openly, and with inconsiderate logic, 265 The Trinity is posited by you as a quaternity; And you have deceived yourself, inclining in vain, Moving against us, from whom you deliberately flee. But if against this nothing has been said by you, Why do you wish both to agree with me and to reproach me, 270 If after the union I say two natures, And introduce double hypostases to me? Thus a base, gain-seeking huckster is detected, B
NOTAE.
255. Taunting Severus regarding the division and confusion of natures in Christ, he compares him to one crazed, who is eminent in astronomical observations, and the motion, position, and inclinations of planets and stars, but who perishes in a shipwreck; whence Horace cleverly derides him, 1, Od. 28: *Nor does it profit you at all to have attempted the aerial houses, and to have traversed the round course in your mind, about to die.* To which is similar that of Archelaus in *Disput. contr. Manetem* in Zaccagni’s *Collectanea*: *He became like an astrologer, describing indeed heavenly things, but ignorant of those that are done in his own house.* ...is said, how nefariously, after the Word was made flesh, a singular nature is asserted in Him. D
You, who rashly mingle wine with water, And confound natures that should be unconfused, Beyond the fact that, though you proclaim one nature Of the Word of God, yet incarnate, You propose two, albeit you subtract the one. But I address another question to you, drawn B From your own arguments; do you unravel the solution, You who are a subtle and clear interpreter of the Scriptures. This very thing, which you say is incarnate, Do you consider it simple, or do you wish to call it double? If you say simple, how can you say it is incarnate? If you say double, how do you wish to call it one? For there is no middle ground between these things mentioned. Therefore, since you refuse to speak voluntarily with us, You are forced to say two, by force of the matter itself. Perhaps you will reply that you do not wish to say double, Even though it has been said by the divine Fathers, But rather that you wish to introduce "composite." But nevertheless you wander in a labyrinth With your own counsel, and have found no exit. For if in composition the natures remain, Preserved in their own proper substances, Then although you confound them, you always say two; Or even if mixed, like honeyed water, They are neither of the two things joined. But if you add that you say it "inconfusedly," And you intend to place a barrier to the composition: C
NOTES.
Those who mix wine with water are like those who act with guile. Thus Pisides rightly likens those who pervert the writings of the Fathers concerning Severus to those who corrupt wine, applying the passage of Paul, 2 Cor. II, 17: "For we are not as many, adulterating, or hawking the word of God, but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God, in Christ we speak."
Eutychians, who defended themselves with the authority of Cyril, especially using that celebrated dictum in the *Epist. ad Successum*, and the testimony of St. Athanasius, as it is said, which confirms that it is the nature of the Word of God incarnate: with which words they have often fought most forcefully against the orthodox who assert two natures in Christ. But St. Cyril has been strenuously defended since ancient times by Anastasius, p. 84 and 95; Leontius, p. 60; and Damascene, *Contra Jacob.*, p. 408, and *De natur. composita*, p. 395.
St. Cyril, as Anastasius testifies, p. 94, said that the one nature of Christ is incarnate, instead of the person of the holy Trinity incarnate; but it is clear enough even in the manner in which Cyril spoke, that two natures are understood; for he who says the one nature of the Word, clearly indicates the divinity; but if he added "incarnate," he declares the humanity, which the Word assumed, as the same St. Cyril notes in his *Epist. ad Successum*.
Although Pisides rightly concludes that he who speaks of two natures in reality says two: but that he is not permitted to assert "one composite nature of Christ" with many arguments is proven by St. John Damascene, in his book *De composit. natura*; for from composition they were eager to induce confusion, whereby Christ would be neither perfect God, nor perfect man. But Christ, he says, p. 521: "There is no one composite nature, but one person existing in two natures; and two natures in one composite person." See the same Damascene, p. 401, *Contra Jacob.*
In every union, which is united, although they may be confused, although they may be mixed, they are one, as they do not depart from their own nature. "And who, indeed, is ignorant that in wine and water mixed there are two natures? But if it is so, for what reason do you, who know the distinction and the properties of the natures, confess one and not preach two natures?" These are the words of Damascene, *Contra Jacob.*, p. 406.
St. Leo in the aforementioned synodical epistle, according to which the profession of faith was published by the Fathers in the Council of Chalcedon, defined it thus: "The Catholic Church lives and thrives in this faith, that in Christ Jesus neither humanity without true divinity, nor divinity without true humanity is believed." But he who says "composite" nature does not truly distinguish the divinity from the humanity, therefore he confounds the natures. If, however, he adds that the "composite" nature is "inconfused," he is found to speak things contradictory to himself. See below, n. ad v. 451.
AGAINST SEVERUS
A Then indeed in your mind you conceive two, But with your voice you speak of one; And with your words you fight against your own mind. You are a fraud to yourself, and you seem to yourself to escape detection. Why do you not teach the two with us, 305 Both inconfused, and well-united, And, I say, well-preserved? And so do you remove every suspicion? But why do you disagree with yourself rashly, 310 Destroying by your words what you think in your heart? I propose to you a problem, and a new one again, Which is a garment taken from the royal treasury: Those very natures which have come together, Do you say they are inconfused, or do you think they are in confusion? 315 And you seem to me now to say they are inconfused. But how, at once, do you say they are inconfused, and one? For confusion is either in two things, or in more. If you do not say there are two, how do you say they are inconfused? 320 If, however, you bring in the incarnation again, You immediately bring back the duality. Hence, like a serpent moving tortuously, It stretches out, and again is drawn back: So, saying that it is inconfused and one, 325 You always return to the duality you avert. This is not some problem of mine, Not the syllogistic question of adversaries, Not what has been handed down by our wise teachers; But it is in truth a word brought forth from God, 330 Where he ordains that those who suffer injury be honored. Then, as if from an abundance of dew, In the communion of speech it was granted to him Who together with God rules the world, B So that he, seeing the accusers, 335 Might provide a defense for the accused, And might compel those who act impiously through ignorance of words By the power of persuasion to act well. O you who stir up confusions and sow divisions, Not so much of dogmas, as of schisms! 340 For you rashly stir up and foolishly divide The united body of the Church; You rend all, but your own most of all: For your design was not so much to gather, As to set children against one another, and to scatter.
A O children of the Father, and I say no more. For since they cannot restrain their tongues, nor curb the outflows of reason, they say that Julius, the Roman pontiff, when Dionysius of Corinth had written to him, had issued a written judgment against us, and had condemned those who speak of two natures. But speak, Rome, and conclude with Corinth: How many years before the Corinthian departed this life did the Roman pontiff emigrate to the celestial city? For twenty-five years before, he had already raised himself above human storms, before he held communion with the Corinthian throne. B O wicked fraud! O violence of writers! O hands that have no straight fingers! They oppose even the graves to the scriptures, not consistent with themselves. As disciples of painters, sketching vile and deformed images, they delineate and obliterate, just as the error of the mind drags them. And so they deceive the simpler ones, the emissaries of the unseen hunter. Thus the faithful dogma of those who think rightly is always prepared to bring forth.
NOTE. C 345. Acephalus heretics of that time, he warns, should be remembered as being born of the father. For they, insisting on the footsteps of Severus, contended with his apocryphal or adulterated writings for the Council of Chalcedon; and had previously made Severi’s writings before the Emperor Justinian in the year 553. 346. That the fraud of the Apollinarians, or Eutychians, had been inflicted upon the Roman pontiff Julius, under the name of Eutyches or Severus, has already been known by ancient writers Gennadius, Facundus, Hypatius, Eulogius of Alexandria, Leontius, and others, of whom you see Petavius, tom. IV, and the second Damascene dissertation of Michael Lequien, and the admonition of Peter Constantinus to this epistle attributed to Julius, Append. Epist. pontif., page 68. Nor did the heretics only blame the Roman pontiff, but also Felix, Athanasius, and Gregory Thaumaturgus by composing books that they might assert their dogma; of which thing Evagrius is witness, lib. III, c. 31: "Many Apollinarian discourses are inscribed with the names of Athanasius, Gregory Thaumaturgus, and Julius." 347. Concerning Dionysius, to whom he wrote, it is a matter of much doubt whether he was a bishop of that see. For John the Patriarch in his synodical epistle, which is in Renaudot, Hist. Patriarch. Alex., p. 560, describes him as bishop of Cyprus, while the inscription of the Alexandrian codex makes him the prelate of Alexandria, and Leontius, de sect. act. 8, explicitly names him the Corinthian. But since Pisida himself does not affirm it, he does not seem to dwell long on the matter, unless the ancients openly contend that he was the Corinthian bishop. 349. There are many things in the epistle of Julius that smack of impiety, which that most famous man Ludovicus Ant. Muratori edited from the Ambrosian Library in Anecdota Graeca, p. 541, D from which Severiani especially adduce these words for their own cause: "For it is necessary for those who say two natures to adore one and not to adore the other." See Constantinus, loc. cit., page 66. 351. Or, I think, he would say to the Corinthian bishop, that is, Dionysius. 353. As our author calculates, the pontiff Julius had already flown to heaven a hundred years before, when Dionysius was ruling the Church of Corinth. Since, therefore, Julius died in the year 352, it remains that Dionysius was sitting on the Corinthian throne around the year 452. But this method of calculation is correct, and the epistle written to the same Dionysius is by no means to be attributed to Apollinarius, who is said to have died around the year 380, but is better ascribed to his disciples, who were of this kind of falsifying of writings, as Leontius indeed testifies, lib. Contra fraud. Apoll. post med. "It is certain," he says, "that the disciples are older than all those whose names are on these epistles." 355. He compares the malice and levity of the Severians to the ignorance of rough painters, who attempt a work already begun, and to break through and destroy. For the sake of explanation, I will bring forward saint John Chrysostom, Catech. secunda, tom. II, page 258: "Just as with painters, so let it be done now. For just as they, placing the panels forward, and covering them with white, and painting the royal images before they bring in the truth of colors, have the power to erase some things and recopy others, and correct mistakes, and transfer the badly placed things, etc. Thus it happens with painters, as indeed it is now. For they, proposing boards and guiding the white lines, and painting the royal images; before they superimpose the truth of colors, delete these things with full liberty, and repaint the truth, correcting errors and transferring things that are poorly placed, etc."
A It bears offspring, but like a tigress It seeks its children, and is distracted in its longing: The one whose offspring has been snatched away Pursues the perpetrator: and taking the infant It pursues how far? It runs more intensely, Trying to overtake another of the kidnappers, And it shakes its body in its running to and fro, Here and there, to save them often, The children who have suddenly fallen among thieves. Now, therefore, the very expression of the Word— They have turned against us to wage war Against the most mystical mind of Gregory, The fountain I would call of God, and the gate of God, Through which the Spirit irrigates every heart, Pouring forth streams of pious thoughts. But they do this because, like brigands, They stand armed to mutilate the books. For of the syllables they cut the articulate necks, And the limbs of the sentences they divide; Joining the beginnings to the endings, They glue the intermediate parts to the following ones. Thence it happens, as if in a raging storm, The clouds of the mind are stirred up. Therefore they turn everything upside down, And they appear to so confuse the words Of the man who pities the Word, as they do the substance. For who that white eye of the Church, Who that mouth of Gregory, shows these things, Not knowing that he has cried out, and is thoroughly convinced, That the highest nature is not subject To corruption, either by mixture or by confusion of passion, Having brought in the undefiled substance? If, however, the wise master is disturbed By saying "Blood of God," and "Passion of God,"
B But they do this because, like brigands, They stand armed to mutilate the books. For the chapters of the syllables, articulated and expressed, And the members of the sentences they divide. Connecting the beginnings with the endings, They cement together what is in the middle with the things that follow. Hence it happens, as if in a raging storm, The clouds of the mind are stirred up. Therefore, they turn everything upside down, And they appear to confuse the words of the man who pities the Word In such a way as to match the substance. For who would suggest that the candid eye of the Church, Who would suggest that mouth of Gregory, Does not feel he has cried out, being thoroughly persuaded, That the celestial nature is not obnoxious to corruption, So that he has not introduced into the undefiled substance Either a mixture or a confusion of passion? But if you are confused in your mind, that the wise teacher Should say what is God’s blood, and God’s passion; D ...as happens in the sea. For if anyone Casts a drop of vinegar into it, that drop indeed becomes sea, Transmuted into the quality of the sea water. And this is considered by the unfaithful? But if the human nature had been entirely absorbed by the divine, As it pleased the Eutychians, it would necessarily follow That the body of Christ was phantasmagorical, And that the divinity had suffered.
A Weigh the things from above and the things from below, And do not obscure the immaculate substance. For that which is deathless is discovered straightway If thou dost not grow weary of consulting the books. 405 If, then, Cyril also introduces the passion, Do not steal thy mind, like a thief having snatched From the familiar, as it seems to thee, the words. For if thou wishest to encounter also the things below, And if thou art raised up a little to cast thy mind 410 To the things above, thou wilt discern what is mystically said. For he is present indeed mystically even in the passion; He is scourged, and he enters the tomb, And suffers all things in our substance, While his own substance has not suffered. 415 But why, though knowing this and prudent, dost thou pass it by? For I betake myself again to the words of Gregory: For he teaches that there are two natures, Calling the same both man and God, the Word, God, as being without flesh; again, man 420 As endowed both with our flesh and with a soul: Not dividing [the mind], or yoking [them], as thou sayest— For this is redolent of thy stupidity— But in truth declaring how the two have coalesced, Without that which has turned into the other, 425 And how they remain unconfused from the concurrences,
B NOTE. The passion and death of God have been rightly termed by the Fathers as an *antidosis*, that is, a "communicatio idiomatum," by which it happens that, since there are two natures in Christ united with each other in a most close conjunction, the properties of one are transferred to the other and they are interchangeably denominated. Wherefore, since one nature does not act separately from the other, but conjointly, and yet the operations of Christ are in one way divine and in another way human, one must discern what is the property of each, lest, by mixing everything as the Severians do, we offer injury and insult to the divinity.
404. For if Saint Gregory could provide less cause for offense to the cautious or the malignant, yet in six hundred places he asserted the distinction of the two natures in Christ; so that Leontius the Byzantine, Euthymius Zigabenus, and the Fathers of the Sixth Synod have confirmed the dogma of the two natures in Christ without confusion by the testimony of this same Nyssenus.
405. Saint Cyril, in defending his *Apologetic*, in which he had defined against Nestorius that one must believe "the Word of God suffered in the flesh, and was crucified in the flesh, and tasted death in the flesh," had excellently revealed his intent and had removed all suspicion from himself. But the Severians, in order to drag it to their own side, always threw this in the face of the Catholics: that since he had said "the Word suffered," and added that which he had added, "as to his suffering in the flesh," in order to declare the distinction of the natures, they would maliciously reject it by a weak faith.
406. Rational soul of man, which, as Saint Augustine says, is not divinity, they understood to be what had suffered in Christ when they said the Word had suffered. For since Christ was perfect man, he was certainly endowed with a mind. "For as," says Saint Gregory Nyssenus, *Antirhet. xi*, against the insane Apollinaris, who placed divinity in the place of the mind in Christ, "the properties of the earthly man are seen in those who are begotten from him; so also according to the saying of the Apostle, who was tempted through all things that pertain to our life, for the sake of likeness, without sin (but the mind is not sin), it is absolutely necessary to preserve the agreement and conjunction with all the properties of our nature."
407. We have spoken of the Severians, by whose frauds we are mutilated in the writings of the Fathers, at v. 480 and 587; denying the mind to Christ, they felt with the Apollinarists, who—witness Socrates, *lib. ii*, cap. 46—said that the soul was not assumed by the God-Word; and then, as if their opinion were changed, they said that Christ assumed a soul, but that the God-Word was instead of a mind in the assumed man.
410. *Mystically*, that is, in the Word, by the Father.
413. I shall opportunely offer a few more things from Saint Cyril, from his *Apologetic* work. "Since he is the same God at once and man, impassible as to the nature of the deity, but passible according to the human; what is the harm, or what is new, if he is said to have suffered in that part which could suffer, while he had remained impassible with that which could not suffer?"
417. How unjustly, and with how vain arguments, certain ones have said that Saint Gregory Nyssenus did not assert a dual nature in Christ, have we indicated above at v. 596.
425. "Concurrence into unity" and "into union" Saint Cyril rightly called in his *Dialogue on the Incarnation* the conjunction of two natures into one hypostasis.
From which [natures] they have coalesced among themselves. If you speak again of crucifixion or passion, you speak of the incarnation of God, not of [His] essence. You understand one who is capable of suffering (for He was not without flesh), for as a body, so also has He tasted of passion. Yet He did not suffer, neither before the synthesis, nor again in the very union of the passion. But as He was not converted when He was incarnate, so He was found untouched when He was crucified. O deaf asp, always stopping your ears against the incantations of God related in the Scriptures! But, as is evident, it is because of your own passion that you say my God is capable of suffering; and you fight alongside the pagans, and secretly, with your first patrons devoted to passion, you signify intended to establish your impious dogma. B But although the discourse burns here, and leaps, and is eager to run, I shall restrain the articulate verses by force. But there is the initiate of my precepts...
NOTES
450. Heb. ii, 9: "We see Jesus, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that by the grace of God, he might taste death for every man." 451. Saint John of Damascus in the *Dialectica*, 64, writes by the consensus of all, that the copulation of natures in Christ is called "unition, which comes to pass through composition." And clearly the ecumenical synod in the canon, or the anathemas, 4, says anathema to him who does not confess the unition of the Word of God with flesh endowed with a rational and intellectual soul according to composition, that is, that it has been made according to hypostasis. For it is admitted now by concurrence, that through the composition of two natures in an unconfused unition is declared. But concerning the names by which the mystery of the incarnation, and the copulation of natures has been expressed by the Greek and Latin theologians, it is best to read the most learned Petau, *De Incarnat.* lib. ii, 1, and lib. iii, 2. 452. *Antilepsis*, which word occurs in Epist. ad Corinth. xii, 28, is explained as aid, succor, defense. For truly the passion of Christ was a powerful aid given to the human race, through which the same parts of Christ the mediator were fulfilled, and salvation was made for the world. See Suicer, in *Thes. eccles.* 456. Ps. lvii, 5: "Like the likeness of a serpent, even like the deaf asp, that stoppeth her ears; which will not hearken to the voice of charmers." The asp is Severus, the "incantations" are the oracles of divine Scripture. 457. Anastasius, in the *Odegos*, chap. 14, page 128, thus illustrates it: "But you, who deny that the natures exist, and who deny the nature, and the properties of the body of Christ, and who reject these from Him, from the loathsome Manes down to the present day, you turn away from them, and avoid them... that you might not be seen as a whole, throughout, to be defiled with filth, and lechery, and desire, and the pleasure of fornication... and that you might not possess the rest of these as the nature of the body, and unworthy altogether, even if it were to be acknowledged in word, that Christ took on flesh similar to ours, or human flesh... for they think, I suppose, that impure and filthy swine, from the filth of their own flesh and lascivious emotions, every other flesh, and every body, is in the same way affected, configured, and contaminated, etc." 459. The whole theology of the pagans is occupied with reciting the debaucheries of the gods, whose deaths are also commemorated. For which reasons the Holy Fathers, who wrote Apologies for the Christians, everywhere mocked the folly of the pagans, who worshiped such gods, subject to life and death. See Saint Clement of Alexandria, Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, Eusebius of Caesarea, Lactantius, and others. 460. The presidents, patrons, and first teachers of Severus, D if I am not mistaken, were Manes, Arius, Eunomius, and Apollinaris, from whom the heresy of the Theopaschites arose, which later endured for a very long time. For did not Manes dream, who said the body of Christ, which was seen, existed only by species and appearance, not by nature? And that passion is attributed to the deity of Christ. Regarding Apollinaris, however, Saint Gregory Nazianzen, orat. 46, pag. 722, writes thus: "He teaches that the unbegotten God, the judge of all, the author of life, the destroyer of death, is mortal, and that He suffered by His own divinity."
He who is clothed in Tyrian purple, And who renders white the robe of the heart, Who with his own fingers stopped the sources Of the perennial fountain: that mind is solicitous For the love of peace, which has schooled A The cruel barbarians. He is the moderator of the world, The slayer of Chosroes, our bulwark, And the arbiter of Persia, who first by arms, And then by words, tamed all the wild B Fierceness of their minds. And I also think That he would soften you, though you are raging, Unless you perchance be moved away from the lyre Which he has attuned. For every bold tongue will be Silent while he speaks, just as already C All weapons are silent, after he went forth to battle. But if you still persist in foreign fables, Striking you with an intellectual stone, He will form a chattering monument of you everywhere. And would that it might be your lot, in fleeing D The wound toward the West, to chase away the disease, And not to reject these sections of mine, Although you do not well avoid yourself. I, for my part, say that the substance of God Is not changed, when God is crucified: For the united Trinity is divided.
A And it is joined more in the division itself. If, therefore, you should say that one of the Three has suffered, you would show that the light of the Three has suffered. For it is not holy to divide or to commingle Him who is from unmixed substances, and who fashioned the creature in the beginning, and whose subsequent Incarnation He did not disturb with confusion. B If, however, you again confuse, or divide in a daze, many passions are born from your opinion: although God, being living, is not subject to passion, but is the same, Christ, man, and Word; when He is perfect man and perfect God, first without flesh, afterward incarnate in time. Existing before time, the Word of God from God, Flesh from the Virgin, embodied by the Word, Animated, endowed with mind, nowhere suffering conversion, mixture, perturbation, or change; but mystically united from unmixed substances. As He who dispensed the two knows, Simple through both, integral in both: for being God, He never has a defect; for He did not abandon the nature that is man’s, just as He did not abandon the substance of the Father. So that you are now taught, in one hypostasis, to contemplate two unconfused natures. I desired, however, the whole amplitude of the discourse...
NOTE
is the dogma of the Church. See Petavius, *De Trinitate*, book vii, ch. 6, and above, v. 168. Saint Sophronius expressed the same in nearly the same words in his Synodica, recorded in the sixth council. C Therefore, the holy Trinity is undivided, and is joined again by division. For having division in persons, It remains undivided and impassible according to essence, and nature, and likewise deity. ...concerning the propositions which the holy Proclus, patriarch of Constantinople, ordained to be propagated against Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius. *For it is said "the Incarnate of the Trinity," and "one of the Trinity was crucified in the flesh":* to which Peter the Fuller, or Gnapheus, the worst of the Eutychians, as if armed with a spear and shield, defended the singular nature which he said was handed down by Saint Proclus, stubbornly advocating the impious addition to the holy hymn of the Trisagion: *"who suffered for us."* See the authors we praised above, v. 130, and the most illustrious cardinal Noris, *Dissertatio historica de uno ex Trinitate in carne passo*. But Saint Proclus had openly taught that the Word, having become man, underwent passion in the flesh, by which words he evidently affirmed two natures in Christ. The Fuller, on the contrary, said that there was only one nature, and that one divine, and that the same one had suffered, which is refuted by the testimony of Saint Proclus. The followers of the Fuller would omit the word "flesh," and therefore would say that the deity, or D rather the Trinity, had suffered. However, it is established from ecclesiastical historical monuments that it was finally corrected by Pope John II and the Emperor Justinian, so that it might be said piously and truly with Cyril and the ancient Fathers: *"God the Word, one of the Trinity, suffered in the flesh."* Therefore Pisides rightly explodes the fraudulent language of Severus: for he who says that something of the Three, or something of the Trinity, has suffered, first impiously divides the deity, and afterward confesses that the divine nature, or the Trinity itself, has suffered. 475. He calls the light of the Fathers [the light]... [concerning] Christ, affirms that He suffered entirely, and that God is subject to passions. See above, v. 457 et seqq. ...the exposition [of faith], which is found to conform entirely to the definitions of the Fathers and Councils. It will suffice to compare this profession of faith with the most celebrated epistle of Saint Leo to Flavian.
496. These two lines are cited in Suidas under the word *telōnion*, with only the mutation of the word *pros- telonia* into *pro- telonia*. They are translated, however, in my opinion, rather incorrectly. Pisides compares Severus to those who collect taxes in the public offices, who sitting at their tax-collecting tables—although it was established how much they ought to receive—nonetheless, in order to enrich themselves, often demanded more than the law permitted them; whence they are rightly excoriated by the holy Fathers as thieves, robbers, and wolves of the sheep. *And he says that the narrow tax-office is...*
A to be squeezed into your narrow tax-office, And to show what, how many, and what kind of Arguments of the faithful accusers there are, And to adapt to them the measure of art. For it is able to grasp the sense of things so That you could neither steal nor adulterate according to custom; But it would not be permitted in iambics alike To conclude dogmatic scriptures. For points immediately, and commas, as is your habit, You would seek from us, although, despite a stimulus in the midst, The meter would force us to cast it in.
Now, however, I will recite to you, lest you block your ears again, B Expositions of the Scriptures word for word, Giving you the option, that you may select, as it seems better: For neither do you approve of [the doctrine] out of two, nor through both, Whichever order you arrange them in; But as some ichneumon in all the books, You find, as you think, the scent of it in the two. There are truly many, although they are unknown to us, Which from blind opinion you defend perversely, O Scripture. Come then, therefore, if you honor Cyril, as you say, Sensibly agree with him: for why do you oppose him, And openly accuse him in the first place? C For I think it necessary that those words, By which you seem to be sound, should be most firm, And that they should be written both first and last: So that they may bind you, enmeshed In the intellectual nets of dogmas. See how foolishly you bear yourself, So that your own remedies do not even help you. If it has preserved my nature,
A A Paternal one he left, if you speak of one; But if he left it not, do not adulterate the two. For he also preserved my nature. Therefore, before this, some master occurring, Shall, buffeting you, interrogate you like a boy; Number quickly the one and the one: what results? For if you say one and one, you speak of one, The saying will excite laughter even among boys.
Hear Proclus the wise master,
And do not commit yourself to the surging sea. And how, hearing the master, do you say That Christ comes into two hypostases? And how do you imprudently teach against us, Who speak of natures in two hypostases? Now it is time for Justin’s speeches To join the struggle against us. For he was most devoted to philosophy, Not as much to this earthly one as to the heavenly, B Burning entirely with desire for God.NOTE. ...it is, but as one having come into the taking up of our humanity, complete and maintaining the reason of man.
...
For he is one and the Only-begotten Son, and the Word of God: his natures not divided into a double hypostasis, but by an ineffable reason joined into one hypostasis. Vide supr. v. 91 and 250. 559. Vide supr. v. 146 et 212. He proposes reading ἕλκειν, instead of ἑλκύειν. Both accurately. 541. If Proclus openly teaches two natures, and we affirm the same with him, how do you maintain against us that Christ comes not into two natures, but into two hypostases? The Monophysites, always protecting themselves with the authority of Cyril, retorted that he had not spoken of natures, but that the hypostases remained unconfounded. Which is indeed to be admitted as true: but Cyril indeed, when he said hypostases, having the authority of the ancient Fathers in mind, understood natures: but conversely the Monophysites contended that they had used hypostases for persons; than which nothing is more foolish: for thus they made the Cyrillians to be abettors of Nestorius, against whom he fought bitterly. Anastasius, cap. 9, and 41, vindicates the holy Cyril from this calumny of the Severians, and p. 96, he praises the Council of Chalcedon at length, because that it might cut off every cause of fraud, C it did not wish to speak of two hypostases in Christ, although the faculty of so doing, in the manner of the Fathers, was not lacking. 544.Devoted to,
the first to work. Rightly indeed: for wonderful is the constancy of that holy man, his fortitude of spirit, and his charity in proclaiming truth against the gentiles, as is plain from the twin Apologies for the Christians, and from the Dialogue with Trypho, in which num. 130, he says thus: "And these things I have said, because I am so affected in soul, that I would say nothing, in which I might fail to speak the truth, not fearing to be reverenced, even if it were necessary to be torn apart by you on the spot." You see ibid. num. 2, how Justin from a Platonist became a Christian. 546.Ἐρωτῶν,
if I am not mistaken, is from ἐρωτάω, a word borrowed from Pisides, to express the great desire with which Justin burned, D that the Christian truth might be recognized by the heathens.A He utterly condemned flesh and blood, And became a faithful martyr for the dogmas. O you who disturb and wheel everything about! O spirit who, like a dead wind in a whirlwind, Have scattered the dust and turn it around! Yet it falls, at last compressed by the spinning eddy. But since, by being brought into the trial, The martyr is crowned by God, Proclaiming clearly with his words the two natures, B And do not obscure what is well joined; But if you do obscure them, you run into an abyss. Let there now be introduced, following the current trial, Another of the true martyrs To the proceedings of the divine judgment. For it behooves us not to bring forth martyrs with words, But to manifest them mystically, Not just witnessing as far as the tongue goes, But shedding blood in the tortures of piety. You ought, having been compressed, to have been pulled down, For your own nerve does not slacken the neck. Be persuaded, even now, not to disturb the natures; For the dual combination is no less than two. Let a third martyr be introduced to the trial. Woe to this necessity! How does he who steals the natures Defend himself against the proofs of the theft? I am ashamed looking at your advocates, How they do not refrain from the shameless trial. But let a fourth law also be introduced.
NOTES
548. The martyrdom, which the holy Justin eagerly awaited, he attained in the year 168, shortly after he had written his second Apology. 549. The corrector prefers to read *suntarattōn*. C 550. The holy Irenæus, a martyr who discoursed excellently on the incarnation. His testimony, and what Pisides seems to intend, is brought forward by Leontius in the aforementioned place, and it also exists among the works of Irenæus edited by P. Massuet, p. 512, in this way: "Christ's body was pure and splendid: within, indeed, adorned by the Word, and without, carried by the Spirit; so that from both [the sides], the splendor of the natures might be demonstrated." 553. He rightly calls the holy Justin, who died for the defense of the faith before tyrants and amidst torments, *theostrophos* ("God-turned" or "God-moved"), so that he may distinguish him from other holy men who confessed Christ without the shedding of blood, and were nevertheless called martyrs by the ancient writers of the Church; but those first ones are truly and properly called martyrs, as Pisides himself teaches soon after at v. 537, where he calls them "true martyrs." See Benedict XIV, *De serv. Dei beatif.*, lib. 1, cap. 2, and P. Ansaldi, *De martyribus sine sanguine*. 554. Although Justin proves in his *Dialogue with Trypho* that Christ possesses divinity and humanity, it is not wrong for Pisides to refer here to the testimonies which, under the name of Justin, are brought forward from the third book *de Trinitate contra Entychianos* by Leontius, p. 554, and by Damascene, p. 420, which say the following: "For by the highest union he was clothed, and the Son of God went forth with both natures." See ibid. the note of E. Michael Lequien. 565. The corrector of the codex reads *en basanois eusebesi*. 568. Perhaps the holy Athanasius, whose testimonies concerning the two natures are cited by Leontius and Damascene, whom see. Indeed, against Apollinarius, lib. 1, 17, he says thus: "That each one, perfect in all things, God and man is the same. Or that both are one, entirely perfect, the same God and man." 570. He alludes to the falsifications with which the writings of the Fathers were corrupted; for when he saw that two natures in Christ were clearly asserted by them, he was compelled either to erase or to deprave their testimonies. O how do they not persuade you to be ashamed in such a shameful cause! 572. "I am ashamed." I think he means that you should be ashamed of such a shameful cause. 575. Two or three witnesses from custom and form would indeed have sufficed to adduce: but since Pisides prevailed by the authority of many, he exhibits a fourth and even a fifth witness; but why he calls them witnesses, I do not sufficiently understand. Is it to show that not by law, nor by custom, but for the favor of Severus, he produces more than two or three witnesses?
A Now at last stay silent, as the martyr says to you, Do not drag Christ violently into defection. We indeed had need of the voices of three or four Distinct witnesses to be gathered, That a victorious sentence might stand for us by law. But since, like a thief or a malicious viper, A fifth witness also comes to the support B It would indeed be your duty, Severus, to agree with us, Rather than to contest the suit against us. Furthermore, if another should now accuse you, He attacks you with these very words. You ought to receive bloody stripes, Since you hear the voices of so many bleeding Martyrs, and you are not ashamed to chatter. Ephrem, come opportunely to provide advocacy; For you have a mind made keen by fasting. Your tongue, moreover, bringing clarification, Come forth from Syria, and contend with the Syrians. O how beautiful is this agreement of voices! For the Spirit blows, and teaches most swiftly Those near and those far, the disciples, as He wills. What does the pearl of my advocates Suggest and wisely teach you? He declares to you a twofold and perfect nature; So that there may not appear any sort of animal Which is mixed by confusion from two things, But may possess complete even one nature. Grant me pardon as I speak these words.
[NOTE]
Deut. xix, 15: « One witness shall not rise up against another... but in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. » C speaking, not only looking to Severus, who was born at Sozopolis in Pisidia, but also to his followers who had infected almost the entire East with the Monophysite plague. 574. Who the fourth and fifth martyrs are, in the opinion of the Pisidian, we can divine. Leontius himself, from whom our Georgius does not dissent, recites the testimonies of Saint Justin, Saint Irenaeus, Saint Athanasius, Saint Hippolytus, Saint Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, and Saint Cyriacus, Bishop of Paphos, all of whom were martyrs. And perhaps these are the testimonies which he tacitly hints at. See Leontius, p. 550. 586. Deriding Severus, saying he should be punished with lashes like a child, cf. supra, v. 582, or condemns him like a heretic with blows. For many punishments were inflicted by imperial decrees upon heretics, among which is flagellation, and other kinds as well. See Gothofredus lib. XVI, Cod. Theodosian., tit. 5. 588. The distinguished deeds and writings full of divine wisdom of Saint Ephrem the Deacon of Nisibis have long since been fully praised by the most holy men; and a few years ago the work was completely finished by the most learned J. S. Assemani, who prepared a most elegant edition of all Ephrem’s works at Rome in the year 1752, and published the life of the same holy man in volume I of the *Bibliotheca Orientalis*, p. 36. 589. There is no kind of penance which Saint Ephrem did not inflict upon his own body. Moreover, the virtues of such a great man are truly admirable, as Saint Gregory of Nyssa enumerates in his *Encomium*, vol. III, p. 599, the abstinence and the vigils of measureless extent, the sleeping on the ground, and the hardships and long takings of the night, and living in austerity. 591. Ephrem to contend with the Syrians D 592. This is consistent with the Greek of the Father with the Syrians and the Latins. 593. St. John, 8: « The Spirit blows where it wills, and you hear its voice, but do not know whence it comes, and where it goes. » 596. The testimony of Ephrem, which the Pisidian indicates, reads in Vol. I, Gr. Lat. p. 265, in the sermon which is inscribed *Against the Heretics*, but which ancient writers used to cite under the title *The Precious Pearl*, or *Evangelical*, because it expounds the mystery of the incarnation by the properties of the pearl, and explains it. And it is clear that he calls the doctor among the Syrians the pearl of the Pisidians. The words of Ephrem are these: « The pearl partakes of two natures; to show that Christ, the Word of God, is God, and becomes man from Mary. And He did not have a partial nature, because he was not another animal, but possesses a perfect double nature, so that he might not lose either. For neither was the divine nature alone upon the earth, nor was the other alone, but the man ascended into heaven; indeed, he is perfect from both, man from man, God from God, and Christ from the Virgin, » etc.
etc.
O thou who searchest out our hearts: For thou thyself knowest that it is not fitting for me to speak Under the compulsion of the dogmas of Severus. A Man, be silent, until you have known yourself, And then at last examine God. He is not half-flesh, not mixed, But as the great Ephrem taught: He descended without flesh, as the Word of God, He ascended incarnate, as our race. Just as he did not descend as a demigod to earth, So he has not returned as half-man to heaven. And now there comes to me a host of defenders From the intellectual heights, And they bring with them a great rainfall of scriptures To support the prince of mysteries. Lo, a great army led by Christ Aromatizes the vital sweetness of the scent. It is thy task to receive the words which they introduce, Unless you prefer to devise a fraud, and buy provisions From those who possess foul bilge-water. Consider the miracle; how a mouth instructed by so many tongues Proclaims Christ in a twofold nature. For being perfect God, he possesses the nature of man, Unmixed, and indeed whole, Maintaining both natures full; And he makes what belongs to the one, by communion, belong to the other. B
NOTE. 605. The text ought to suggest the mode to be observed in examining matters of division, and, as the holy Ephrem suggests in the sermons *Against the Heretics*, vol. II, p. 291, and *On the Faith*, p. 557; and *Against the Scrutinizers*, vol. III, p. 418, he wishes to probe divine nature with scrutiny. 607. This is Christ. 608. This is God. 611. Assemani, recently praised in the *Prolegomena* to the works of Saint Ephrem, vol. II, p. 55, makes note of the words related above. Regarding the "pearl," he observes that it is read differently by Anastasius Sinaita and Leontius of Byzantium: both seem to use the same codices; for Anastasius, ch. 10, p. 74, says: "There is a duality of the natures, in order that he might not destroy one; neither did a demigod descend to the earth, nor did a half-man ascend to heaven." Leontius expresses it in the same words, as is apparent in the version of Fr. Turrianus, p. 554: he also has the double nature, and does not lose it. Nor is he seen as a half-god on earth, nor as a half-man ascending to heaven, etc. But anyone can easily reconcile Pisida with Anastasius and Leontius, when he says that Christ did not descend as a "half-man," and did not ascend as a "half-man." 615. He understands other Fathers, both Greek and Latin, since those who confessed two natures in Christ, and whose testimonies are praised by Anastasius, Leontius, and Damascene, are not only those, but also the six hundred who, when they existed, subscribed to the Council of Chalcedon, in the action of which it was a decree C that, to the definition of faith, according to the judgment of the most holy Father Leo, it should be added that there are two natures united in Christ inconvertibly, inseparably, and inconfusedly. 621. He would prefer *χρόντων* in the codex to be read *ἐκχόντων*. Pisida rightly calls the writings of the heretics "bilge-water," as they are full of falsifications and frauds. 622. He proposes a consideration of the number and variety of languages in one agreeing sentiment, so as to be altogether admirable: all the Greek and Syrian Fathers, as if with one mouth, were instructed to profess the two natures in Christ, the communion of properties, and the distinction without confusion. Whence Pisida rightly exclaims above, p. 592: "O how beautiful is this agreement!" 623. Pisida clearly shows that the distinction of each nature is to be honored in Christ; which indeed all the Fathers, or even Pisida himself, showed more clearly. I praise the one holy Leo, who in the aforementioned epistle to Flavianus explains these same things most learnedly, which our author runs through quickly. Therefore that great Pontiff says, ch. 5, p. 815: "The property of each nature and substance being preserved, and into one person concurring, majesty was assumed by humility, strength by weakness, mortality by eternity. In the integral and perfect nature of true man, true God was born, whole in his own, whole in ours." Let one compare the *Synodicon* of Sophronius, read at the Sixth Council, if he desires to find more on the matter. On the communion of idioms, whereby what is proper to one nature is, because of the closest union, transferred to the other, see Petavius, *De Incarnat.* IV, 15. D "...in this unity, there is no falsehood, while they are mutually present; the humility of man and the height of divinity. For just as God is not changed by mercy, so man is not consumed by dignity. For each form acts in communion with the other, that which is its own, the Word surely working that which is of the Word, and the flesh performing that which is of the flesh."
A He sleeps indeed, as a man; but as God, he again blocks the now overly bold mouth of death. B He is distressed, but he opens the tombs. He hungers as a man; but in return he satisfies the mouths of ten thousand men with poor bread. He weeps for Lazarus, who was dead; yet he restores him, though his limbs were already stinking. He cleanses lepers, and, willing it, he is baptized. He raises the dead, and is laid in the tomb. He rises again, and he shows once more that the natures are intact; for the miracle was of God; but he shows the types of his flesh as still evident, so that, by an open and providential reason, he might instruct you that he is man and God by nature. Lest you be deceived by the impieties of error, which now, ignoring yourself, you have devised. And calling him Lord and God at the same time, Thomas teaches you the two natures. Are you silent now at last, or do you dissent again, resisting the reins like a young horse? But now at last, like a perpetual fountain, the mouth of Gregory pours forth its words.
NOTES
650. Ibid, pag. 822. "To hunger, to thirst, to be weary," clearly belongs to man. But to satisfy five thousand men with five loaves... is without doubt divine. See Anastasius, cap. 15, page 109 and following.
652. Pisida, he says, "poor bread, he thinks," meaning that it was barley bread. "The mouth of ten thousand men," or he put it for the number of men, or because our author believed that the crowds satisfied by Christ with five loaves were truly ten thousand men: for when the Greek text of Matthew xiv, 21 has: "And they that did eat were about five thousand men, beside women and children;" some thought that the women and children equaled the number of men: from which opinion Pisida was perhaps not far removed.
653. Saint Leo, in the cited place. Not of the same nature he bears the affection for a dead friend, and with a voice orders the dead to rise. Pisida expresses what John says (xi, 59): "He stinks, for he is a four-day man (quatriduanus)."
655. Saint Proclus at the end of his oration *De Deipara*, page 66, comparing the properties of humanity and divinity, and distinguishing the two natures in Christ, as Pisida most invincibly demonstrates. A few things to the point: "The servant was struck with blows, and the creature itself shuddered; he himself was bound on the cross, and the throne of glory was not deserted by him; he lay enclosed in the tomb, and as for the sky, he spread it out like a curtain; he was reckoned among the dead, and he despoiled hell... O the magnitude of the mystery! I see miracles, and I proclaim the divinity; I see the passions, and I do not deny the humanity."
657. Saint Leo, in the cited place, page 827: "For after the resurrection of the Lord (which was truly of the same body, by which another was not resurrected than he who had been crucified and killed), what else was accomplished during the delay of forty days, than that the integrity of our faith might be cleansed from all shadows of doubt? For he was conversing, Acts i, 4, with his disciples, and habitating with them, and eating with them, and admitting himself to be handled by them with diligent and curious contact, those whom doubt was pricking; and for that reason he also entered in to the disciples with the doors closed... and again the same one, showing the fixing of the nails in his side, and all the most recent signs of his passion, saying, Luke xxiv, 39: 'See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Handle me and see, for a spirit has not flesh and bones, as you see me have;' that it might be recognized in him that the propriety of the divine and human nature remains indivisible," etc.
659. John xx, 25: "Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails... I will not believe."
642. What Pisida declares in many words, Saint Maximus explains in few, tom. 2, epist. 59, p. 264, saying of the Word, "so that while he is truly both (God at once, and man), he constructs the one by divine miracles, the other by human passions."
643. All the Fathers used the testimony of the holy apostle Thomas concerning the two natures in Christ after Proclus, about whom see above, v. 536 and following.
650. Saint Gregory of Nyssa ends the patristic company. For him whom Pisida defends above, 578 and following, against the calumnies of the Monophysite, here he constitutes not only an advocate, but a judge along with his brother Basil.
A Bringing Basil with him, who is the basis of doctrines. For both, being executors of the sentence, urge us toward the resolution of the case.
{Translation of the poem:} Hear, O madman, the teaching master, And putting an end to your perverse fallacies, Allow us to lead a quiet life. For now he forbids both natures 585 To be called one: but now he openly introduces Both natures, yet in one, two at once. Now, however, he says again that the Word, as God, preserves The property of the natures inconfusedly, United from unmixed substances. 590 Therefore, stop that mouth with silence, And draw a very dense veil over him: Lest some lightning bolt from on high forestall you, Or the earth, gaping and bellowing for you, Drag you into the calamity that Abiron had. 595 For the creatures cannot bear to be silent, If he who created them is affected by injuries. But now I pray that you, fleeing the darkness Of the gloom, run toward the light. You are not far from it, if you will: 600 For you have near you the sun, the Despot, Who will transfer your heart toward the light, And will lead the tyrant error into captivity, Preparing for you solutions instead of chains. Now truly we, for your sake, have briefly written down 605 The statements of the Scriptures, Not turning to abundance, but as much As was necessary to persuade you. For if a small seed is cast into good ground. C
NOTES. 651. *Basil, the basis*: as it is manifest, the word Basil sounds like the root "basis." Hence Ephraim in his great encomium, Basil, vol. II, p. 289, thus praises the man: "Basil, the bishop of wonders, walking in the flesh, and walking in the spirit, lives a life of miracles, which proceeds in the flesh and progresses in the spirit." 652. *Executors of the sentence*: he calls the holy brothers, Gregory and Basil, because through them he fought most validly against the Gentiles, and against Arius, Eunomius, and Apollinaris, who were stealing from Christ, denying his divinity, and because they had condemned those Monophysite heretics who, acknowledging one nature only in Christ, and seeing that his human nature appeared divine, did not admit the divinity. Moreover, the testimonies of Saint Basil are refuted by Leontius, p. 551; by Saint Leo, p. 1397; and by Saint John Damascene, *Contra Jacob.*, p. 421. 653. *Schemes*: of the mind, or of the word, in various ways, by which they seek to twist the words of the Fathers, just as Severus did out of malice, to pervert the truth. See v. 220 and following. 657. *If then the contrary of the one is seen*: that is, the nature of the flesh and of divinity, how are the two natures one? "If, therefore, a nature of these is discerned in opposites, namely flesh and divinity, how are they one?" This Saint Gregory in *Antirrhetico* cap 40, p. 226, whom Saint John Damascene cites, p. 424. 659. *That from that, what is said concerning God*: he understands regarding both, that it [is said] concerning the divine not to suffer, and regarding the human to suffer economically. Hence he cites the place from Saint Gregory's *Orat. Contr. Eunomium*, Leontius, p. 551. Pisida, saying that Saint Gregory constructed both and two natures, meets the criminations of the Monophysites, who affirmed that the word "both" induces a confusion of natures. 660. *Those of the same substance*: they possess identity; but those of different substance, conversely; even if in ineffable union both are one, yet not in nature, but because of the inconfused, in which they are truly recognized, he has a singular person. *Which are of the same substance*, they have, as they are the same: whereas against them, *which are diverse*. Even if they are one by ineffable union, yet they are not one nature, but "inconfused." Christ, therefore, is two natures, in which he is recognized, and he has a singular filiation, a person. This is cited by Damascene, p. 424, from the epistle of Saint Gregory to the Philippian monk. 663. *With Core, Dathan, and Abiron with the multitude of two hundred and fifty men against Moses*: and they conspired, and it was broken, Num. xvi, 21, "and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up... and fire came out from the Lord and killed two hundred and fifty men." Pisida rightly thinks that those who rose up against God were blasphemers, and rebels. 675. Often he calls Heraclius "sun" because of his appearance, or because of his piety, or finally because of his eloquent mouth. 676. *Scripture indicates Heraclius*: in whom the difficulties of the Monophysites, as he sees, were being solved. Marc. iv, 5 and following.
A It sprouted at once into a multi-germinating ear of grain: But if against that which is sterile and overgrown with thistles, Though it was sown broadly, it perishes, Either snatched away by intellectual birds, Or suffocated by the thorns of passions; Or if you still struggle against your Fathers And strive to thrust upon them other fallacies, As a parricide you have strayed from the Scripture. We know them indeed to be truly pious, 690 In whom the purpose of the dogmas is identical. But O radiant eye of the entire world, And tower, and support, and soul-nourisher, Confirm the conclusion of the things I have said By the authority of your discourse; For I have not had familiar dogmatic conversations. 695 But I have always delighted in your expeditions, The downfall of tyrants, and the destruction of enemies, And I have studied to sketch in my speeches The many-sided and manifold struggles of yours. For you did not abandon your speeches to follow generals, 700 And while speaking as an orator you did not put away the sword. But just as, they say, the nature of certain animals Is adapted to both land and sea, So your mind, because of its nature adapted to all things in turn, Remains truly ambidextrous for every endeavor. 705 And Camboe is a witness to me, called so in the Persian tongue, Which took up the spark of your lamp. For not even the ray of the shining sun Drives away the penetrating power of winter— As much as you, having snatched away its power, 710 And the bitter winter of ignorance,
B The Note on the next column clarifies: The author clarifies the meaning of "paraphasis" or "epiphronesis," terms the poet uses to critique those who falsely interpret the Fathers. He notes that the author here advises Severus not to fruitlessly thrust upon the Fathers, as if they, when speaking of the incarnation, had concerned themselves with the sophistical flourishes of rhetoricians, preferring to be understood as having said more than they did, or as having meant things they never said; a practice which Severus himself favored.
Regarding the mention of the city of Camboe: It is a city known to those who study the geography of the East, identifying it with Edessa in Mesopotamia—a city famous under many names, such as Arach, Rhoa, or Orfa. Assemani notes in his *Bibliotheca Orientalis* that in the Persian language it was called Camboe. Theophanes and Cedrenus confirm that Heraclius restored to the orthodox the church of Edessa, which had been held by Nestorians during the times of Chosroes. C While the poet’s language might lead one to believe the city was being brought to the Christian faith for the first time by Heraclius, rather than being restored to it, he implies that the city was, through the imperial power, roused to see the light in the midst of darkness. It is my judgment that these things pertain to Edessa, though I leave it to others to decide, as the author preferred to call it by its Persian name rather than its Greek one.
A You have shown it light to observe in the darkness; Yet for the present it holds vital sparks, Warming it, that faith chilled. 715 By your heat, rekindled more, It will surely desire also to receive the dew. Thus Christ runs everywhere with you, And everywhere shows you triumphant. I would have wished to write things well-adorned, 720 And full of piety, concluding your discourses; But it is not permitted to polish the writing, Wherever your mouth shall thunder, most mighty one, Sending around the lightnings of reason, For we must fear lest, if we should wish to write, And should deviate much from your discourses, 726 We should appear as writers of false books. B
END.
NOTES. 712. *Reconciling with sacred ointment in the manner of the baptized.* This penitential rite against the Arundines (Arians) is defended by Jacobus Goar in his notes on the Euchologion, page 887, which see, as being both ancient and laudable. Certainly, if Pisides by "dew" understood that ceremonial anointing through which the Edessenes, repenting from Nestorianism, could recall the Spirit of God into themselves and restore the lost effect of grace in their souls, it must be granted that a rite of this kind had been in force long before Methodius. 726. *False writers, or to be branded with the crime of forgery,* which is the greatest of crimes.
MONITUM
That Pisides wrote the Encomium of Saint Anastasius the Persian in prose prose (καταλογάδην) had long ago been testified by Suidas; and that this is the very text which we now bring to light from the Mediceo-Laurentian library, both the style of writing and the marks of the time demonstrate. For the style indeed, as far as one can judge by comparing the writings of any author, is wonderfully consistent, and savors entirely of Pisides. There is the same felicity of expression here, and the same elegance of words, perhaps sought with excessive zeal, which shines in the iambics. But the sentiments also correspond to sentiments: for, as Pisides was a great admirer of the Emperor Heraclius, he is everywhere and always insistent in praising him; consequently, as here in the beginning, so also in *Acroases* II, 415, *De Expeditione*, and in *Abaricis* 495, and in *Heracliad* Acroasis I, 84, when he calls him Moses, and soon after "divine, and the height of the whole inhabited world," he touches upon many things concerning the same emperor and his enemy, and the enemy of the Christian name, Chosroes, which harmonize with those things that are found scattered in one or another of his poems. But what is the use of advising these things, when the author immediately, and at the very beginning of his speech, betrays himself? For who, hearing that this very Encomium was written by the order of Heraclius and recited in his presence, would prefer to think of anyone other than Pisides, to whom alone that dignity and grace seem to be reserved? But the time also fits wonderfully; for after Chosroes was defeated and slain, namely after the year 628 had passed, this oration was delivered before the emperor, as is evident from those things which are narrated there at the end. At that time, however, Pisides was flourishing most; who, to congratulate the returned and victorious prince, immediately published the *Heracliad*, and soon after, to adorn his piety toward God, wrote the *Cosmopoeia* and *Contra Severum*. Nor has any other author of that time become known to us whom we might say composed this eulogy of Saint Anastasius. But let us now see what is the authority of this oration. From it, the Acts of Saint Anastasius, which are read in Bollandus, expressed in Latin from the Greek on the 22nd day of January, are wonderfully confirmed and clearly declared genuine. To say nothing of the many arguments by which Bollandus himself proves this, such is the [affinity] between the Acts and the Oration.A Indeed, such is the similarity and relatedness of the subject matter, that one must admit that either both these writings are false, or they are entirely sincere. For those things which are recounted in the Acts in a historical manner and with a simpler style, the same things are read in the Encomium—not changed, not increased, not diminished, not reversed, but merely embellished with a certain oratorical style and expressed in more elegant words. Their beginning, their end, and the entire narrative of the deeds of the holy martyr agree most fully, so that anyone can easily feel and confess that both flowed from the same source. Should we, then, wish for Pisidas to be the writer of the Encomium and the Acts as well? By no means: for, as is our opinion, Pisidas composed his eulogy from the Acts themselves, once they had been sent immediately to Constantinople and published; but the Acts were written by no other than that same monk who accompanied the holy martyr Anastasius into Persia until the completion of his martyrdom. A witness to which matter, speaking of Pisidas himself, says: "Tŵν δὲ ἀδελφῶν συνωρίδος, ὁ μὲν πρὸς τὴν μονὴν ἐπανόδῳν λαμβάνεται, ἕτερος δὲ συναναβαίνει τῷ μάρτυρι· τοῦτο γὰρ ὑπὸ τοῦ προεστῶτος αὐτῷ προστέτακτο, τῇ μὲν τῇ συναρᾷ καταυφραίνειν τὸν ἅγιον, πῇ δὲ τῇ χρείᾳ καθυπουργῆσαι τοῦ μάρτυρος· ἀληθέστερον δὲ λέγειν ἐστὶ καὶ σαφέστερον ἀνιστορῆσαι τὴν ἄλησιν προσταττόμενος· ὅπως τῇ διαστάσει τῶν τόπων τοῦ πέρατος, μὴ κλαπῶσι τὴν εἴδησιν." B One of the two brothers returns to the monastery, but the other goes up with the martyr; for this had been ordered for him by the abbot: that he should at once comfort the saint with his company, and at the same time serve the martyr in his needs; but it is more true and clearer to say that he was ordered to record the narrative so that, by the distance of the places of the journey, they might not lose the information. C Thus, then, the abbot had commanded him, both that he should comfort the saint with his presence, and that he should assist the martyr in his needs; or to put it better, that by mandate he should record everything, so that knowledge of such great things might not be hidden by the distance of the locations. Which, indeed, are recounted with little difference in the Acts in Bollandus, chap. 5. But as for the other Acts of St. Anastasius which circulate under the name of Symeon Metaphrastes, rendered into Latin by Gentianus Hervetus, and praised or published by Aloysius Lippomano, Laurentius Surius, Baronius, and many others, Bollandus is correct in judging that they were fashioned and formed from the preceding [accounts]. For the things themselves clearly occur there that are praised in the Bollandian Acts and in this Encomium of Pisidas, and they are not suited to the genius of the writers. One thing remains which we must mention. The Bollandian Acts are contained in a double treatise, of which one deals with the life, the other with the translation of the relics and the miracles of St. Anastasius: both of which 350 fathers in the Council of Nicaea II in the year of Christ 787, assembled to proscribe the Iconoclast heresy, treat with great honor. That Pisidas had the first treatise before his eyes is not to be doubted, for, as we said, the beginning and the end are the same in both writings. But it is evident to the reader that he had not seen the second treatise while he was writing. Therefore, the second treatise is not proven by our reasoning to be spurious or lacking authority. So far are we from wishing to affirm this, that we have noted it rather to clear up this difficulty. D For Pisidas could neither see nor read it, because it was not yet written. For that monk, whom we have called the author of the Acts, having returned immediately after the victory of Chosroes over the army [of the empire] in Jerusalem, is narrated here at the end: καὶ τούτοις διὰ τῆς Ἀρμενίων συναναφέρεται γῆς, καὶ πρὸς οἰκεῖον ἐπανέρχεται μοναστήριον. But he published only the first part of the Acts, containing the struggle of St. Anastasius, and composed his oration about it, which he recited around the year of Christ 654, when Modestus, patriarch of Jerusalem, had already departed this life: for since he was dead when this oration was delivered, Pisidas himself indicates this, saying: Φύλακι τῷ τηνικαῦτα ἀποστολικοῦ θρόνου, μετ’ οὐ πολὺ δὲ καὶ αὐτοῦ διευθύναντι τῆς ἱεραρχίας τοὺς οἴακας. And he who was then the guardsman of the apostolic throne, and shortly afterward ruled the hierarchy’s rudder; if Modestus had still been alive, Pisidas would not have said: "And shortly after, ruling, and now he is ruling, and now he is ruling the rudder of the hierarchy." But when the same monk had gone into Persia a second time, he diligently ordered that the miracles occurring on that journey in which he carried the body of the holy martyr with him should be written down, and from these he composed the second part of the Acts; which the Acts themselves clearly testify, as the second part begins thus: "After the struggles of the glorious martyr-athlete, when the brother who had been with him had departed for the Persian province to recover the holy relics and bring them back to his monastery, etc." But whether anyone saw this second part dealing with the translation of the relics, it is uncertain; and if anyone ever saw it, after this Encomium had been recited, that is a fact. Therefore Alex. Politus is wrong in his *Martyrologium Rom. illustr.*, page 567, who thought that Pisidas had recited this very Encomium after the body of St. Anastasius had been brought to Constantinople. For he says: "Moreover, when at that time the body of the holy martyr was brought to Constantinople, and received there with honor, I believe that Georgius Pisidas, deacon of the Great Church and chartophylax, in order to serve the glory of St. Anastasius as he himself did, brought forth his eulogy." But if this was the occasion of writing, how is it that he says nothing about the matter in the Encomium? Therefore, since Pisidas said nothing about the translation of the relics and the miracles of St. Anastasius, nor could he say anything clearly about things which are disputed in this matter by Martyrologies and biographies of the saints, we shall leave them aside; for we have nothing certain that we can conveniently bring forward to resolve the controversies.
OF THE SAME: THE LIFE, CONDUCT, AND STRUGGLE OF SAINT ANASTASIUS WHO SUFFERED MARTYRDOM IN PERSIA.
A A certain law has been given from heaven to those who cultivate piety, so that they might not suffer the torch of memory to be extinguished at any time; so that by the sparks of the brave athletes the dragon might be scorched daily; and that those who are to come might be illuminated by the brilliance of those who have gone before, as they learn to kindle light one from another. Each one, always having the radiance of the good in close proximity, and being stirred by the proximity of the better as if by prods, becomes more eager for imitation; for a man is naturally more fervent to undertake an action when he is led by a recent example.
Accordingly, our own Moses—he who submerged the recent Pharaoh in the sea and put the foreigners to flight by the stretching forth of his hands, he who is a lawgiver after the Lawgiver and a teacher of the Churches—when B
NOTE.
he had received this law, spiritually inscribed upon his heart, he ordered it to be A deposited as if in an ark, so that the martyr might be adorned by his words, and that the manna of his deeds might shine forth and be stored up. But as for me—O holy and sacred summit of the inhabited world—I know that I am the mouth of God, yet I know not myself to be 4 Bezalel. Since, then, I receive what has been commanded, may there come to me the command of divine inspiration. For yours are the things of God; but fear was the beginning of wisdom.
Come then, new Israel! And you—let one of you, for an ear, place an B argentine base beneath him who speaks; let another place a mind, steadier than golden pillars, upon the bases that are more brilliant than these. Let another spread out his belief like a linen veil; let him bring forth the fruit of his faith as a preparation for the mercy-seat. Let another bring praises like incense to the martyr. Let all bring all things; for all things are common to all, and the gifts of justice are distinct. I know, therefore, that you will bring a rich contribution; but I, as I wander through the deeds of the martyr in a somewhat more abundant manner, accept the discovery for myself—not that I am able to comprehend the whole, or to count the things that are numberless, but I shall be judged happy if I manage to depart after having been C encompassed by so great a light. For whenever a discourse struggles to bring forth the eulogy of deeds, and makes it a matter of zeal to measure it out, it seems like those who compete in striving to measure the sea, and in extending one span after another to those who are suffering—for in the same way, the greater is shamed by the lesser, and the long discourse is convicted by the short. For indeed, what sort of discourse would be sufficient for the martyr, concerning whom it is written that the world itself was not worthy? 8 For these [martyrs], having overcome with every eloquence as a loud-sounding trumpet for the Word who became flesh, and having inscribed their confession D with their own blood, like a royal purple, have become partakers in this—among whom our own glorious athlete, Anastasius, has also become one, in whose life we shall, as far as we are able, mirror the Word, having proposed the divine Word himself as our guide through the word. For this is above all things; and above all, we shall be enriched by him, and by the glorious martyr.
The region of Persia brought forth this man 10 Razecl.
His fatherland was a village, Rasum by name; he himself is called Magundat. He had a certain magician for a father, named Fau. Since he professed the art of magic, he nourished the infant boy with the milk of magic, so that, being fed as it were on the food of impiety, he might not learn piety; but, like one blind from birth, he might be ignorant of the sun, and wander in the darkness of error like a bat. For the habit of infants knows how to prefer what is worse to better things. Therefore, the magician-mother offers him the juice of her breast, quenching in him, by a kind of spiritual poison, the appetite for good, and burying deep in his body a mind congealed by the cold of sin. O charity without love on the part of a father, and O affection that is inimical! The malignant scorpion teaches his son how to creep tortuously, and warns him not to deflect from his father’s movements as if he were a bastard. For he prides himself on the very perversity of his mind, B and rejoices, thinking that infirmity is health. Thus he institutes his son as the heir of his own disease, having previously given him demons as tutors. For I am not ashamed to display the triumph of the martyr: For where sin abounded, grace did much more abound (11). Indeed, the son did not accept the paternal contamination; but, having abandoned the inheritance of impiety left by his father, and having summoned the tutors to judgment—not to seek from them the paternal things, but because they had preserved those very things—he branded with a white stone a sentence against what the demons love, who pursue dark things. Therefore, the son uncovers the paternal disgrace, and becomes a kind of pious parricide, he who was established under the power of the impious. O rose germinating from thorns, and fruit most sweet from an C embittered root! A magician father, and a martyr son: old age is delirious, youth is wise. For both exceed the bounds of their own ages, not fulfilling things in accordance with their respective times.
Meanwhile, when Chosroes—that tiller and sower of corruption—had prepared the tender ear of grain with the steel of war, he established Magundat in the military field. Thus he then took root in the city of the king of the Persians, guarded by the army’s threshing floor. For that barbarian was cutting down and devastating even his own land with fire, so that he might burn the neighboring land at the same time, and he rejoiced that his loss was joined to that of his neighbor. For that tyrant was so cruel that he would not refrain even from his own flesh, like a polypus. But when our transgressions kindled a material flame against the cities, a new Nebuchadnezzar (12) D occupies Jerusalem, and carries off the ark of the New Testament.
Having offered up the cities as food for the fire, he makes A them—himself and the ancient trophies of Christ’s life-giving and precious wood—take their journey to Persia.
O, the paradox of miracles that transcends!
That Christ should approach Hades and, having despoiled death, lead away the Lord’s Cross as a captive of the Persians, into the bondage of that nation’s superstition! B It was as though he were leading the Cross into the prison-house of hell, to the most wicked of tyrants. Yet, this was the image of the first devastation of death. For just as Christ formerly conquered death, so the Lord’s Cross, the bulwark of error being shattered, led away the souls that were living in earnest, and shed upon them the shining radiance of the true light; for it struck the eyes of the hearts of those who did not believe, like a flash of lightning, C in its brightness, and illuminated the minds of the believers.The fame of the Cross spreads through Persia
. Indeed, the report that runs through Persia, that the God of the Christians is present, was proclaimed; and this was unknown to none, as all were telling the story and everyone who heard it—for the report of great things is wont not to be hidden, even from those with inferior hearing. It was brought, then, to Magundat, the report of the most holy Cross’s presence; and he, like one swimming through the Red Sea of demons, captures that D precious drop, receiving the rumor and transforming it into a precious pearl. Nor did he let the report pass by unheard; but, having tasted of the fame, he hungered to be filled by the sight of the Tree of Life. It is a good appetite, and a profitable one! The eyes, purified at the spiritual fountain, cast off their old infirmity, and become a Siloam to the intellect, healing the mind that was blinded by disease. He began to frequent the temples of God, and to busy himself with the accounts of the martyrs, deeming their sufferings fortunate, and emulating their likeness; next, he yearned for something greater and more divine: the journey to Jerusalem, and the cleansing there through the holy baptism. Oh, how the purpose of the action and the thought comes to pass, and is confirmed by the result! He moves himself to Jerusalem, and remains there, finding hospitality with a man who exercised the same calling—as one might say, a brother and a guide in his craft—for the lack of knowledge is wont to serve, for one who is skilled in the trade, as a means to make acquaintance with strangers, and one anticipates, by the similarity of the craft, the fellowship, suddenly becoming intimate with those from afar.He meets the priest Elias
. By this means, the God-pleasing love is [E] spurred on; for the tongue—provided it be a matter of some praiseworthy character—always prefers the object of its desire, and leads the mind, even if it happens to fall upon someone of note. He, then, having been instructed by Elias, the priest of the holy Resurrection, in the most beautiful argument concerning the love of men, and receiving him gladly with paternal compassion, as a gift from God, commended him to the venerable ModestusA, who at that time was the guardian of the apostolic throne, but shortly after became the rector and governor of the hierarchy itself. He had previously joined this man to one of the same race and of a false religion, as if to an equal chosen pair, to be offered in a burnt sacrifice to Christ by the divine fire of baptism, just as another Elias, with triple water, kindled the divided sacrifices B. For from then on, those who seemed to be two distinct members became one by the will of the same spirit, both striving with equal zeal for the heavenly life, and both appropriately placing upon themselves the crown of martyrdom: one of whom indeed manfully undertook the struggles of the faith upon the cross, and placed the trophy of his piety in heaven C; but our illustrious athlete overcame his adversary in Persia. In truth, however, prayer venerates and honors both; but it does not contend to enter the course of two stadiums, for it is enough for it to dare to complete one. D
A And so, the name Magundat is changed to Anastasius; for he truly rose up from a deadly fall, and he set upright the columns of his soul, having placed them upon the base of the faith. At the same time, he also assumes a name suited to the garment of immortality; for it was fitting that he should strip off the old man and become a new one, as he who was regenerated by water and the Spirit. Anastasius ran to the Lord, and the holy baptismal water extinguished the magical fire.
What then shall I do from this point on? What tongue, what fountains of words, or what keenness of mind shall I employ, so that I may advance with greater boldness through what follows, and yet not appear to have flown on waxen wings? Seven days having already passed in ritual observance after his baptism B, the most holy Elias, with whom Anastasius was staying, went to the man of God, the martyr, and asked him what he finally desired to be done for him. "It is enough for me," he replied, "to spend this fleeting time of life in labors, and I desire voluntary mortification. I utterly detest death, which is the father of life, and I loathe the life which is the mother of death; it is the monastic state that I seek, and the company of angels that I desire." For he who had been entirely carnal had become entirely spiritual, and having resolved in his mind upon a kind of discipline of life, he wished to struggle against his past actions, opposing deeds with deeds; for that spark of piety toward God which had been in him had become, in an instant, a hidden flame. C And so he leads the man to a sheepfold of the rational flock, or rather, to a divine school. They call the place the monastery of the Abbot Anastasius, lying three or four miles from the city. Here he offers the holy lamb to Justin, the head of the monastery, who, besides being instructed in great wisdom amidst divine things, knew how to pasture the flock itself beyond danger, and how to keep it unapproachable, guarded by a strong wall of piety. This holy man received his new guest into his spiritual brotherhood and enrolled him among his own, barely one year having passed into the tenth year of the reign of the most religious Heraclius D, and he handed him over to a man experienced in training—or, to speak more accurately, in initiating—one who knew clearly and rightly that in this discipline one must begin from the very first principles, and that he himself must be an example to the novice.
NOTE
A series of words continues from the preceding line, curving to the beginning of the next, in that form which is a repeated course, which they call a *diaulos*. And so it is a repeated space of the same stadium, namely, a run from the starting-gates to the turning-post, and again a return from the turning-post to the starting-gates: which the scholiast on Aristophanes explains more clearly. Bingham also, *Antiquitates eccles.*, vol. IV, c. 12, calls it by Pisida a "weekly observance."A to set forth as an exemplar. This Pyrrhus was our own; not for those to whom it is permitted, so that they might be ignorant of this, or by hiding some small thing of this sort. And so, as if training a youth with softer rudiments, he instructs him, and disciplines him, holding him fast in the meditation of literature and other matters which are the beginnings of this discipline. For that is the best instruction, which arises from nothing but the first elements. B But then, when he trains him in the Davidic canticle, it is as if—under a trumpet—he makes him ready to war against the adversary. But after it seemed to him that he had sufficiently good precursors, and the first things having been cut away, he fortified him with the venerable ascetic habit. For when the soul commands the body, it rightly dismisses the body itself, as a captive, decorated with care, and accommodates itself to the senses. But to speak besides of what things are consistent with these, and of those things which for them, after virtue, run on in a convenient manner.
Our blessed cook, not for a delicate and soft banquet, is destined for the brothers. For there was no care for this among them, except insofar as necessity compels one to supply the body, and to perform a certain irreproachable duty for the flesh in any matter whatsoever. Hence, who from merit, of the man, and of his manner in using simple seasonings, C and in proposing food easily preparable for all, and—which is better—who will sufficiently admire the sweetness of his character, with which indeed all, and above all, God was delighted? "For all things whatsoever the just man shall do, shall prosper" (27). From this, however, he passes to another duty, not prescribing these offices for himself, but obeying the mandates of the monastery. A garden is entrusted to his care. What then was for him to do, if not to assume the cares of a gardener (28), and to bind his thoughts to the earth? But he (for he was ambidextrous) cultivates the earthly paradise, and gathers the vintage of the celestial paradise. Water makes the earth fruitful, and he irrigates his soul with tears; and from both sides he gathers a common harvest. "For the just man shall flourish like a palm tree," it is said prophetically (29); "like a cedar, which is in Libanus, he shall be multiplied." Thus daily a new accession of his virtue was being made, but, captured by a certain emulation, he did not cease to listen to the lives of the ancient Fathers and the divine oracles: D and—instilling into his soul from this fountain of good things—if perchance anything seemed to escape his grasp due to the profundity of the words, he would immediately, by questioning his teacher, block the deluge of ignorance. But if ever he read the histories of the martyrs, which he would do (a thing he always did when he was in his cell), he would burn with a flaming desire, beseeching God with many prayers that, for love of Him, such struggles might befall him: and of this desire in our martyr the certain proof was the assiduous reading of things of this sort. For men are accustomed to pursue with hearing, and with tongue, and with every sense those things which they love.
A Indeed, and only then is the disposition of the soul uncovered, however much the thought may be concealed by appearance. These, therefore, were the martyr’s exercises. He consumed seven years in meditating on these things (50). But the hater of every good, and the enemy of every virtue, the dragon, envying the saint because he was making such progress toward God, stirs up in him the latent disease of wicked superstition, and, attempting to remove him from the state of salvation, brings him back into a suspicion of former infirmity, and submits to him—if I may so speak—a magical Eve, so that, if possible, he might expel him from the paradise of faith. But he did not entirely deceive the strong man by his guile; for he had long since departed from his malignant company. Rather, he disclosed the sickness of his heart to his master, imploring him to bring a remedy to the affected part; for there dwelt in the Father the knowledge of divine charisms. What then did that physician of souls do? He summoned him, curing him with admonitions, and, in place of an antidote, gave him prayers, and made him vomit forth the venom of the dragon.
B But now my vessel of discourse hastens to turn in another direction: for the port is not, but the sale of goods is the end of the undertaken navigation. The blessed man sees a dream, or, to speak more truly, a vision (51). For his soul was awake to God, and his mind was not sleeping. The vision, then, was a mountain, not such as other mountains are—low and lying upon the ground—but of greatest magnitude, and most beautiful in appearance, with its summit closer to heaven than to earth. Upon it stood the man of God, to whom a certain young man attended, ministering a cup of wine: the material of that cup was not base or abject (52), but such as abounds in the dwellings of happy men, gold of exquisite art; and the whole of it was adorned with precious and royal gems. He seemed to hear one saying: "This chalice is poured out for you." He, having accepted it, drinks, and was immediately suffused with much sweetness. C Then, indeed, rising from the vision (for he was now seized by a holy frenzy, because he was moved within by the divine Spirit (53)), he proceeded to the contemplation of the psalms; he knew how to say: "My spirit rises by night to thee, O God, because thy precepts are light upon the earth (54)." And that night was a preparation for the holy Lord’s day. There was given to him, therefore, a certain prophecy through a dream, foreshadowing with graphic signs the outcome of future things. For because he despised earthly things, and was in heart readied for heavenly and divine things to be received: "He ascends into the mountain of the Lord, and stood in his place (55)"; where, firmly established by faith, he receives the cup of death according to that Lordly voice: "Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass (56)," the material of gold indeed demonstrating the excellence and price of that very cup. D
A And the stone surrounding the chalice, which the one above—the very one who had B appeared in a vision—brightly prepared with precious stones, even as he appeared visibly, was in one of the sacred dwellings of the monastery. Having taken the superior of the monastery after asking, he threw himself upon the floor, washing his feet with tears, and with a loud voice he cried out: "Give me, Father, the final prayer; give me the provision for that blessed departure; C give me the escort for the migration to that place. I know, Father, that you planted me in the labor; I am not ignorant how you watered me with your sweat; I acknowledge that through your hands you plucked out my thorns; you saved me from the shipwreck of this life, and guided me into the harbors of the faith."
The Father therefore questioned him, whence this departure had been stirred up; and he immediately narrated the prophetic dream, guaranteeing that the common cup was indeed the cup, or rather the debt of death that he owed, for it clearly and explicitly declared the things to come, concerning which he feared the punishment of the Father in the heavy burden. D But the one who spurred on the mind of the athlete toward virtue, Ephraim, says: "If you draw near to those things which are hoped for, strive now more manfully, so that you may be crowned more brilliantly. A little labor still remains, and the great rest of the reward follows. A little sweat produces the harvest of piety; for by the end are things judged, and he who endures to the end, he shall be saved." But the other things that were heard from the martyr would be long to enumerate, and not even possible to relate. The blessed one was intent upon these things (for he had his mind and his law fixed upon the Father, and held his words), and once the divine liturgy was completed, and he had partaken of the all-holy body and blood of Christ, he became a fellow-table companion to the brethren; and having slept a little, as much as to escape the notice of those who were like-minded, he departed secretly, like a fledgeling eagle having perfected its flight; no longer enduring to linger in the nest. He went forth therefore, bringing nothing further than the necessary coverings of the flesh, having adorned himself with the goods of piety, namely, destitution; for the renunciation of possessions was wealth to him, and piety was his provision. Hence he set out toward Diospolis A for the struggles, praying to the martyr George for similar truth; for men are somehow accustomed to entrust themselves to those who have already conquered. He withdrew then to Mount Garizim; there he offered that child of his thought, Isaac, as a sacrifice of praise to God, for he did not deem the ram a worthy substitute. Then also to the...
A heavenly-guided, he came to Caesarea Stratonis; for it was indeed made known by God, which was a demonstration of a miracle. He therefore always stayed where the Mother of God was to be proclaimed, for it was fitting that a man prepared for the contest and instructed in it should occupy such a stronghold. When he had remained there for two days, he proceeded to the temple of Saint Euphemia, and there he took the beginning of his trial B (46). He saw nothing strange, nothing new, nor anything foreign to his former way of life. The Magi stood by the fire, busying themselves with prestidigitations and incantations, performing a wicked thing subject to demons. The true soldier of Christ attacked them, striking with his tongue and wounding with words, by which he easily pierced their souls, which were truly unequipped with rational arms for defense, and which had no leader prepared for the task. Then he exposed their evil arts and unfolded their traps, revealing that he had knowledge of all the things by which they performed their work, as one who was a defector, not a stranger. "Why do you wander," he said, "and lead others into error? What empty monsters do you fashion, and in what do you glory, inciting mere trifles to the destruction of souls?" While they were wondering and inquiring whence he knew these things, the blessed man answered: "I too was once enrolled in this same C service of yours; I too suffered from this same marvelous disease of yours, and I was once carried away by the voluntary insanity of my own mind." Hearing these words, they turned their backs and, confessing their own impiety, they begged him not to commit them, so that their sophistries might not be hissed at, deeming it to be to their advantage if the holy man departed as quickly as possible. Now, he had scarcely proceeded a little way on his journey when the horsemen D standing in front of the vestibule of the Darbas (48)—which the Greeks are accustomed to call the *Archion*—seeing the blessed man, declared that he was a spy. What, then, did that noble man do? Casting his eyes very courageously upon them, and rising up against the appellation of the name, he despised their vain thought and futile garrulity (49). Mother
A Indeed, beauty for speaking is the piety of the faithful. "I myself," he said, "was once of your order; I knew how to mount a horse, to bend a bow, to extend a shield, and to brandish a spear. But now I serve under Christ, nor have I come here as a spy on your affairs." In saying this, he stood as one expressing his own conscience rather than as an informer against them; for there was no need for him to conceal his love for Christ, the author of his being, as if it were some theft, nor to purchase safety with lies, having surrendered himself entirely to Him who is the Truth above all things. Therefore, the barbarians seized the martyr courageously, rushing upon the lion of piety like a multitude of dogs all at once. Meanwhile, the sellarius arrived B and, suspending his interrogations while the other replied, asked who he was and of what race. After this, the blessed man remained in custody for three whole days, passing them in fasting; he was not trembling from a distaste for food, nor constrained by a lack of victuals, but because he was averse to those who brought the food, as they held views too foreign to his own, regarding the fraudulent nature of that people with loathing. Yet bread did not come to him from heaven by a raven, as it did to the prophet, but he was supplied only spiritually and intellectually.
When Marzahanas had returned to the city again C (for he was not there when these things occurred), the sellarius immediately reported everything to him in the praetorium, but the governor, having recently arrived, could not yet deal with the martyr; for the people are accustomed to flock from all sides to those returning from a journey. Meanwhile, a man distinguished by his virtue stood by the saint, and though a stranger, was as one known to him; for he had already seen him when he was staying in the temple of the Mother of God. Having learned the reason for which the saint was detained, he said that the blessed man was to be congratulated for having undertaken so great a work, and he added words of encouragement, that he might finish what he had begun, just as spectators are accustomed to exhort athletes. D When, however, Marzahanas had taken his seat publicly and with a certain haughtiness, the martyr was finally brought in; he immediately refused to perform the act of adoration according to the national custom, showing by the very posture of his body that he had composed himself to a different way of life, and declaring by his habit that his soul knew not how to be enslaved, so that an example of such base submission might be cut off from the very beginning. For he feared the head of the dragon, never dismissing the suspicion of his heel. For if he had bowed his head to the earth with his hands bound, the adversaries would have said: "The beginning is ours; the customs of his country have not faded from the man's memory, he is terrified by the mere look of the judge; a little while longer, judge, wait, and he will return again to servitude." But the blessed man, in his wisdom, turned aside this hope of his.
A And Marzahanas, knitting his brow and breathing forth threats, lingered for a little while in silence, showing himself more terrible in the very expectation of his speech than in the questioning. Then he said at last: "Who are you, and whence are you? Come, speak up!" And he: "I am a true Christian." A reply full of divine grace. With these first words he strikes the dragon, for he stands firmly upon the sinew of his soul. "I am a true Christian": as if he were to say, "I have been sealed with a royal seal, and I do not steal the treasure of salvation." "But if it pleases you to B know from where I am, I am a Persian by birth, from the region of Razech: my fatherland is noble. I was formerly a cavalier and a magus, but, illumined by the rays of truth, I turned away from the darkness of error and fled it." He poured forth a response that was full of conviction. And like a skilled soldier, extending the shield of the faith, he defends that which is easier to capture because of its weakness. O truly most beautiful beginning of speech! For it was fitting that, as a servant, he should follow the birth of his body. The C jailer again says: "Man, recover now at length from your infirmity, and accept the salvation of our religion: and there shall be for you among us a possession of much wealth, an abundance of riches, and a manifold variety of gifts." These were not words of little weight: for they seemed to imply this: "Man, we will cure your infirmity, and we will even give you a reward for the salvation you have received." To this the blessed man: "May the God of my love not permit that I should ever fall away from my Christ." He refuses your gifts, O judge, and makes manifest your malice. He does not care to win D mortal things, that he might lose the immortal God. He loathes the impiety of these proud gifts. "I hate," he says, "riches that shut out for me the heavenly treasure." Then he, despising the worthlessness of his garment: "Does this torn and squalid clothing please you so much?" "Certainly, this is my boasting." And so, while he strove to strip him of the breastplate of piety, the blessed man wrapped himself in it more and more, showing himself impregnable to his enemies. "By a demon," says he, "it seems this man is driven." But he, on the contrary: "I was formerly indeed of various demons, but now I am a temple of Christ, through whom demons are put to flight." Again he: "Do you not fear that, by the King's order, you shall be crucified?" The martyr replied: "I know that he is a man, and a king, and you also." Inflamed with anger at these things, Marzahanas said: "Drag him to prison, and let him carry stones there, and let no rest be granted him." Truly these were mandates born of anger. For power when spurned is accustomed to call upon force for its aid. Meanwhile, the noble athlete performed the mandates, but he felt that those things which were added in the manner of an episode were harder than the mandates themselves. For certain men of his own nation, to whom the blessed one's deed seemed not to be tolerated, approaching him, tried to turn him aside from his resolve by blandishments in secret, or to reproach him even then with insults against the Christian faith.
A Indeed, he did not even endure a team of four men; however, he bore the blasphemy, and the weight of the stones he felt, upon Christ the corner stone. He was the first to rightfully receive the victor's crown, and the sound of those falling was heard by the devil.
Now B truly, as the martyr proceeded to another kind of contest, the account presents a more noble appearance of a theatre, that he might conduct a more splendid triumph. Again he summons the noble man Marzabanas, having composed his countenance toward greater severity: "Come now," he says, "hearken! You respond: if your father is great, and you yourself are instructed in the magical arts, recite now something from these, which you have learned, that we may discern whether the things you say are true." "Far be it," he said, "that my tongue should serve such things, and that apparel which is destined to merit favor! I will not allow an organ dedicated to blessing God to be profaned. For the lyre, which is very pleasant for divine praises, becomes altogether mute in absurd matters." C "Do you not intend, therefore," Marzabanas says, "to return to your former religion? We shall write to the king about you." To him the blessed one says: "However much you stir up a storm of evils by writing against me, yet I have stationed myself in the harbor of Christianity, and I do not fear the waves of threats." Then he orders the martyr to be bound and beaten, hoping to compel him to obedience by stripes. But he said: "The bonds are superfluous." And adapting himself to the lashes, he offered his body, composed as it was, to be beaten with rods: for the desire of martyrdom, which he had, was a voluntary bond. However, he prays that his naked flesh be struck, taking it ill that an injury be done to his venerable garment. D For he had great concern for the sufferings of his soul, but as for those things that were done to his body, as to a handmaid, he was not at all anxious. "It is a jest to me," he said, "what you are doing, and even if you cut me into pieces, you will certainly gain nothing else than that you will hear Christ be praised." Again Marzabanas threatens that he will write to the king about such a great crime; the latter, however, urges him to do so quickly. The former put forth the name of the king for terror; the latter, however, opposed the communion of the same nature, calling the king a servant of corruption, and subjected to the laws of nature, and related to clay and dust, just as is he himself. Stupefied by this freedom of speech, the Barbarian (evidently indeed, both by the clamor of words and by the threats of lashes, he thought he could put bridles on a lion or terrify a giant with phantoms), again orders the martyr to be led into prison. After he had commanded him to be set in the theatre for the third time, he attempted to entangle the noble martyr with the blandishments of words, and to cast him into the dust of superstition, so that the crown of faith might
gain a further luster from the godless. A For how is it not shameful to deify the sun, which is subject to circular movements and is forced and hidden by the cone of the earth? For it does not appear at night when it might be called upon; it remains bound where it is confined, not believing in the Creator to whom it is subject, lest the error of the godless should perhaps be increased by it. Nor again is it able to defend the one who does not worship it; for the shadow of a worthless tree is often sufficient for the support of one who desires it. And as for the moon, why should I even speak? It is convicted of stealing its light, and its very nature is to steal and to be constantly convicted. And how is it not pitiable to worship the horse, which is adored by them, yet is beaten, and does not even sense the honor [shown it] as much as it senses the stinging of the lash? B I also laugh at the fire that is worshipped; for they call it god, yet they extinguish it when they wish, and they themselves are found to be masters of the salvation of that which they honor as god. Heaven forbid that I should bend down to such objects of worship! For these are things that are slaves, and man is their master. But you have changed servitude into mastery in an inverse order, and through ignorance of the truth you traverse the dark path of the demons. Thus with a tongue of fire, and with an impromptu wisdom, he spoke against the tyrant, just as the Spirit gave him to speak. He was therefore again led away to the prison, become more august by the multitude of his crowns.
LIFE OF ST. ANASTASIUS THE MARTYR.
C Interea, the fame spread even to the monastery, which had been the gymnasium of virtue for the martyr; it heralded the savagery of the barbarian and the firmness of the blessed man; and all the brothers fittingly sang praises to God for his victory. But the spiritual gymnasiarch, and president of the monastery in which the righteous man had formerly lived, having sent a pair of brothers to the martyr, just as a master in the games signals to one in the stadium, designated by letter how he might seize the enemy, and kindled the zeal of emulation in the athlete.
But now my discourse is led to recount a miracle in connection with the man while he was in chains, D which silences my tongue out of admiration for the event; and the stupor that inhibits the movement of the tongue constrains my speech even more than the chains constrain the martyr. For when the noble man was tightly bound in prison, he spent the whole night plucking the Davidic lyre, and...
A seeing the house of the Virgin, marvel. For she who carried God in her arms, now carries the same to the reverence of this place. Here, those appointed to rule the earth trust that they hold the scepters of victory. Here, the Patriarch, watching, averts many worldly calamities. The Barbarians, however, having attacked the city, as soon as they saw her acting as general, immediately bent their unbending necks.
Otherwise. It was fitting that the house of the Virgin should become a second gate of God, just as the birth. An ark appeared, holier than the former, not bearing tables God-written, but having received within itself God himself. Herein are fountains for the cleansing of fleshly [sins], for she who bore... B
On the Deposit of the Precious Robe of the Mother of God
Therefore, all, so to speak—pontiffs and kings, and all who are subject to these, those in power and in office, and all who pursue a private life—bring to Christ and the Theotokos in Blachernae expressions of gratitude for every public and private joyful matter; and for every sorrowful matter, trusting in Blachernae, they cast off the burden; I pass over the countless number of those healed there from various diseases, lest I again make my account small.
FRAGMENTS OF SENARII
A Behold and admire the temple of the Virgin. For she who carried God in her own arms, now carries him to the veneration of the place. Here, those who are constituted to rule the earth trust that they hold the victricious scepters in their hand. Here the watchful Patriarch averts many calamities of the world; B the Barbarians indeed, having aggressed the city, when they saw her alone as the leader of the war, illico bowed their indomitable necks.
Aliter. It was necessary that the house of the Virgin be the second gate of God, just as the son. That ark appeared more divine than the former, which did not carry the tables written by God, but inside received God himself. Here fountains for the cleansing of the fleshly stains C... [alt-version omitted]
NOTE. ...rem seem to me to have been written. For first, Charito did not assert this of any goddess whatever, but only of Diana and Minerva. Second, although we concede that he said this of all the goddesses of the gentiles, what does the argument drawn from the image of the God-bearer avail against him? Third, finally, let the inference from sacred things to profane avail, if it pleases; nonetheless, it is concluded much too boldly from the verses brought forward that at those times when Charito was writing, it was not at all true what he wrote. For if he lived not many years after Constantine, as I have even said in my anger, and Pisida, who is the author of the senarii, certainly flourished under Heraclius, how is the testimony of one brought forward against the other, when there is a difference of three hundred years between them?
Whether indeed the Christians began to paint Mary with the child Jesus in her arms during the time of Constantine, I do not think is easy to say; for although many cemetery pictures are recorded in which the Virgin Mother is said to be depicted in that manner, as Du Cange noted in his *Dissertation on the infantile age of the Roman currency*, n. 50, nevertheless no one could establish anything certain from it. But that is certain, that such a use prevailed very much among the Christians themselves, and began to be used more frequently when Nestorius was condemned, namely around the year 440, so that they might show against that heresiarch himself, who stubbornly asserted that there were two persons in Christ, that the Virgin Mary was truly to be called Theotokos, not Christotokos.
But d'Orville did not perceive that all these things, as it seems, were contrary to themselves, because he was ignorant that Pisida was the author of the former verses. The illustrious d'Orville would have better refuted Charito if it had occurred to him what is clearly elicited from ancient monuments to the contrary opinion. D For the Etruscans represented their goddess Nortia holding a small boy wrapped in swaddling clothes, as can be seen in Gori, *Mus. Etr.*, tab. iv, and the Praenestini made a statue of Fortuna with the boy Jupiter, on the authority of Cicero in *De divinatione*, lib. i, and the ancients sometimes gave the infant Plutus, the god of riches, into the hands of Fortuna, as Pausanias testifies in the *Boeolica*, lib. ix, cap. 46, who also notes that Cephisodorus made Peace among the Athenians, carrying Plutus in her arms. But also at Rome in the portico, which the most eminent Cardinal Lantes lately ordered to be adorned in his own house, is seen a statue of Venus sitting and fostering a boy in her lap, whom he named Venus Genitrix; a very similar statue of which is also preserved in the Florentine Museum, as from Gori in *Statues*.
But what of the third senarius, which the same d'Orville did not notice had been carelessly made a septenarius by the scribe? For it must be read entirely: *pro pousa*. But as respects the other three senarii, I do not know at all whose they are, since d'Orville reveals nothing about the author: certainly they can be Pisida's. Regarding the reading which he himself proposes for *propor*... writing *praponaplevo*, I confess that it seems satisfactory to me: for it may suffice for me to have changed only one letter, this namely, *e* into *i*, so that for *methri otis* I might read *proporotis*, and all things will be clear to me, and thus I will translate: ON THE GOD-BEARER carrying Christ in her arms. This very one, who gave birth, remains a Virgin again, and is like the mother in all things. For the boy is God, who willed to assume human flesh.
And these senarii could have quite beautifully been affixed together with the others in the temple of the Blachernae, which the Greeks report to have been more magnificent and celebrated than any of those which have been dedicated to the Virgin Theotokos. You may see the description in Nicephorus Callistus, lib. xv, cap. 25, and in *CPoli Christ.*, lib. iv, p. 84. The poem was written in the Blachernae. We have noted the explanation. They published the version in this way: We have not hesitated to embrace Fabricius's correction.
...of the institution of Christ, it is gathered from Deut. x, 5; and III Kings viii, 9, that there was nothing except the two stone tables. But they are not destitute of great authorities and testimonies who have asserted that besides the tables, the rod of Aaron also, and the urn with the manna, were contained in it; in which opinion was Saint Augustine in *Quest. supr. Exod.*, lib. 1, pag. 455. Georgius, the metropolitan of Nicomedia, in the *Narration on the deposit of the vestment of the God-bearer in the Blachernae*, which exists in Combefis's *Hist. Monol.*, pag. 757, seems to have instituted a certain paraphrase of Pisida's epigrams. It will be helpful to relate a few things:
A and perceived that it did not respond to his desires, he received the agreeing right hand. For he is divided rather into the opposite, with the spirit resting while the body lies, nor does the spirit lie at the same time as the body. At length, contending to overcome his strength, he cast himself onto the one lying near. For in fact, if one may speak so, some things of the limbs, as happens in the compacting of shields in battle, not one, but another acting out of stupidity, escaped himself and the body. And so, having awakened from sleep by the sudden rush, he said to the Hebrew: "Raise your eyes." But there was nothing now more to be seen than what, as was his custom, images offered to him. He relates, therefore, to the Christian the spectacle offered to him, and what the mind had heard, not the eyes, nor had the ears seen, he explained; for he had exchanged one sense for another into what was more uncertain. But now a precious crown is given to the martyr! B Indeed, the athlete is proclaimed in triumph! But he constructs this [a miracle] for the spectator, not so much to accord honor to the Hebrew as to the Christian, but so that by the testimony of the enemy, the faith of the miracle might be confirmed in order that the suspicion of a tale told too elegantly might be removed, and so that he might make the same person worthy, so that he might later taste the recounting of the thing itself; nor for this reason, that such is the banquet, is it right that anyone depart before it is finished, as if [he were] slandering the munificence of the one inviting.
C Now truly, when Marzabanas had sufficiently explored the noble constancy of the martyr with his three distinct trials, he reveals the athlete's firmness to the tyrant. But immediately, as soon as he received the answer in his own letters, he summons the saint and a certain one of his household from the prison. Then he says: "The king commands you to renounce Christianity; for this one word, if you comply, a generous option for the future is yours, whether you wish to embrace the monastic way of life, or with us again serve as a knight in arms. D You are in a full and foolish plan! Now, he says, it is in your liberty after your defeat to renew the struggle, or to remain in the word’s fall. If you wish to be wise, to the option before the struggle, adversary; for no one grants victory, whether it can be revoked is uncertain. He replied confidently: "Far be it that I should ever separate myself from the love of Christ!" Again, he entreats the antagonist with the same words. The athlete loves that, whatever way he once succeeded, by that to take the enemy, to use the same a second time, and to be wedded to the victory of the first labor. Therefore, Marzabanas, sending another multitude of gifts, writes to the martyr, proposing an hook while placing a pitfall beneath. But when he sensed that even this was tried in vain by him, and that it brought him to another thought, having recovered [from it], as it seemed, [it was] even wiser than the triumph. I know, he says, the fear of the denial, and you know the counsel of salvation, through the refusal to deny Christ, and their reverence, who are of the same sentiment as he, [and that it is necessary] to be removed from rendering obedience. Since the king commands you this, come now, let us ourselves doubt the liberalities, and reconcile our contrary senses. No one is to be an auditor and witness of your abnegation, except me, and two
A witnesses. If we were to be silent about these things, the very stones would perhaps break into speech concerning what has been done. Having abandoned this forbidden drunkenness, and all the filth of foreign songs. B Fleeing without fear, and running, he returns. Footless and handless, he does not weigh upon the neck. The compositions of each of the limbs are complete. And one could see many Bacchuses unwillingly dancing their final dance. I will tell you now, if you are really not wishing to close your ears. He behaves like a giant, and desires to play the tyrant. You have been seeing these things for a long time through your dioptra. C The double-fold of the tunic that fell upon me held back the blow of your weapon that was aimed at me. Having brought together the five faculties of Archimedes into one whole, in order to move, with difficulty, the loads of the hard-necked protuberances. The eagle. Those whose nature is not inferior even to thirst. D
A matter already established, that after five days he should set out from there, and together with two other men of the same persuasion be sent to the king. But when the festival of the Exaltation A of the precious Cross (75) occurred within the set limit of those days, the blessed man, along with the two brothers sent to him from the monastery, and together with those who had been assigned as his companions for the journey, as well as others from the city, spent the entire night in singing psalms correctly to God. You could rightly have said that the cramped prison had been turned into a workshop of piety: for places themselves are often transformed, and take on the character of their inhabitants. The day had barely dawned and the sun risen above the horizon of the earth, when the prefect of the silken robe (76), a good man, released the blessed one from his chains (for he had obtained this from the Marzaban), not in order to prevent him from finishing the struggle and to keep him from gaining the remaining crowns (77), but so that he might celebrate the venerable festival with him. Therefore, as the martyr approached the temple of God, everyone immediately ran to him, and kissing the marks of his chains, they decorated him with praises, crowning the athlete with crowns more precious than gold; for gold gives more, but praise adorns the one who receives it more. Then, indeed, everyone from all sides encouraged him for the struggle, and having no doubts about the martyr's nobility, they heaped praise upon him even for the future victory. But when they had persisted for a long time in divine worship, the prefect of the silken robe, along with the two, using almost force, took the saint away to his own house; for he was in a way envious that the prison should have such an inhabitant. When the meal was finished, he led them back again to the prison, considering himself blessed, and giving many thanks to God, that He had shown him his desire, whatever it might be, in the martyr.
NOTES
The mark of infamy, I do not doubt, was such as was customarily branded on the forehead of fugitive slaves, whence they were called "inscribed" and "lettered" among the Romans. See Pignorius *De servis*, p. 27. But as for what Pisida says, "as is the custom of the Persians," I think he said it quite rightly; for that this was a most ancient custom among them is testified by Herodotus, who in Book VII reports that Xerxes, among other servile punishments, branded the Hellespont with stigmata. But perhaps Pisida noted this very fact to show the ferocity of the Persians, who still retained that barbaric custom, which Constantius had long since proscribed, because it is unseemly that a face be disfigured which was fashioned in the likeness of celestial beauty. The Acts, according to Bollandus, because *barbaram* savors of mere Hellenism, have *quod barbaram Graecitatem uteret*; whence the Latin interpreters rendered it that he ordered him to be led forth branded. That the holy Anastasius was marked with this stigma, or "bull" if you prefer, on his forehead, his ancient image shows, certainly fashioned from a prototype newly recut, which, engraved in bronze, we have taken care to append. The author of the collection of Miracles of Saint Anastasius mentions this image, translated into Latin by Bollandus from a Greek manuscript; which, having been brought to Rome with the very head of the holy Martyr, shone with new miracles, commended by the seventh ecumenical synod held at Nicaea, and is still kept and venerated today in the church of the monastery of SS. Vincent and Anastasius outside the walls at Aquas Salvias.
(75) The Exaltation of the holy Cross, which Heraclius brought back to Jerusalem after he had defeated Chosroes, we also commemorate on the fourteenth of September. But even before this, the Greeks observed the same festival under the same title and on the same day, who were accustomed to celebrate the Cross long ago discovered and exalted by Constantine the Great. "We think, therefore (these are the words of Baronius in the *Martyrologium*), that the same solemnity was accustomed to be celebrated long before, then was increased by the great victory won through Heraclius, and made more illustrious from his memory." See Suidas on the word *Heraclius*.
(76) He who is called in the Greek *semachē archōn esthētos* (silken robe prefect), is called *dispositor* in the Latin Acts of the republic, but in the Greek *komerchiarios*, which word Bollandus changed to *commerciarium*, thinking it denotes a trader or some official established by that. But that word, if I am not mistaken, is not derived from *commercium* (commerce), but is composed of *comes* (count) and *vallum* (fortification), as if you would say a count or prefect of the rampart. That he was a man of some dignity is declared by Pisida, [calling him] the leader of the silken robe.
(77) In the Greek, *sterēsomenos*.
A Now when the time for departure had come, and the call to leave the city was sounding—like a herald summoning an athlete from the Olympic games to the Nemean—he immediately set out from the city of Strato, having as his companion on the journey the pair charged with the general dispatch. The entire populace of the city—Christians, and those Persians who were of the same mind—sent him on his way, rejoicing in his steadfastness, weeping at his loss, praising the things he had already accomplished, and urging him forward to those that remained. There arose a mingled cry, [a] sound which looked toward the man’s noble ambition. B Therefore, of the pair of brothers, one returned to the monastery, but the other went up along with the martyr; for this had been ordained for him by the abbot, partly so that by his presence he might cheer the holy man, and partly to minister to the needs of the martyr; or, to speak more truly and clearly, [he was] commanded to record the contest, so that through the distance of the places the outcome of such great events would not be hidden.
Meanwhile, a rumor spread abroad and called the cities together to behold the martyr; for the blessed one was entirely worthy of being seen, shining like a star in the night and drawing the eyes of all toward himself. Truly, he was an admirable athlete, who was being sent to the contest after his victory. C Thus, all the cities on every side applauded him, calling him a common ornament of the faith, a dwelling-place of God, a holy temple, and an undiminished treasure of piety. And it was the concern of all, both private citizens and men of high rank, to receive the martyr with hospitality, because each one hoped to be relieved of the malady of his own sins. D Being thus conducted on his way with splendid pomp, the righteous man reached the land of Persia, as if he had been sent to receive admiration rather than punishment. There, the prison of the place called Bethsaloe immediately received him, situated about forty stadia from Discartha, where the bloodthirsty Chosroes had built his palace. In this, the righteous man truly imitated Paul, being moved from one prison to another for the sake of Christ.
NOTES
(78) See above n. 43. (79) In the Greek Acts it is added, some out of calumny. (80) Bethsaloe, or as in the Acts, Balsaloe, is a town where Saint Anastasius was imprisoned and afflicted with various torments; it was situated near the river Torna, as Bollandus confirms, following the probable conjecture of Theophanes, § III. Pisida, in his Encomium of him, testifies that the place was near a river. It was distant from the royal city Discartha, in which Chosroes had established his seat, as the Acts have it, by six miles. This agrees with Pisida, who says the town itself was built roughly forty stadia from Discartha. (81) Discartha, the metropolis of the Persian kingdom, which is also found called Dystagerda, Dastagerda, Deseridan, Darstager, and Dastagerchosar, was placed by the river Tigris and was distant twenty-five miles from Ctesiphon. Pisida elsewhere, in the *Heracliad*, acroas 11, 173, called this city, perhaps with a less barbaric name, Parartasis; and he assigns the cause of its appellation, that it was built by Artaxares, or Artaxerxes, who from a slave became king and occupied the Persian kingdom. Ibid. v. 203: “He then built this city, on a high tower, in an impregnable place, as a wall, as he showed, of sin.” (82) Regarding the royal palace that Chosroes had at Discartha, and which the Emperor Heraclius destroyed, see more in the aforementioned *Heracliad*, acroas. 11, 220.
A a man of the lineage of Jesdin the Persian, clothed with greatest dignity, yet a Christian. Now when a number of days had passed, Chosroes was made aware of the presence of the martyr. From this arose the beginnings of other contests, and more exalted trophies of victory; for by as much as the persecutor is crueler than the persecuted, by so much the more splendid are the crowns of crowns. Therefore the tyrant sent him whom he deemed most fit to promote impiety, ordering him to examine the saint, bringing against him the charge of piety; for he who is not impious must needs be deemed most impious by the impious. This man, taking the prison tribune as his ally, stood before the dungeon, and said, "Tell me, fellow, what is the meaning of this change of mind of yours?" B But he, establishing an interpreter of the language (for he had at once renounced his native dialect, not enduring that our things should be adulterated by the manner of the speech), replied: "Because my salvation and my object of worship is God, but for you there is error, and your religion is demons; and of these I am a precise judge, as one who possesses knowledge of both. What then, wretch? Did not the sons of the Hebrews crucify Christ? And how have you chosen to follow fraud instead of truth?" The blessed one said to him: "You speak clearly of the passion, but you say nothing of the resurrection. For Christ, the passion was voluntary, for the divinity, being united to the flesh, dissolved death by death, freeing man from the servitude of the demons whom you worship. This same divinity formed and fashioned heaven and earth; but you, esteeming God, the Maker of all things, as nothing, have rendered yourselves subject to created things." C "Cease these puffed-up and bloated words," the official said to the martyr; "for if you are persuaded, the king will grant you the splendor of dignities, the magnificence of wealth, the nobility of horses, and what is greatest of all, it will be permitted to you to be with him and be heard by the king." In a way full of guile, the adversary offers himself to this noble man; for, painting the harlot superstition with rouge, he hastens to distract the man from the beauty of piety with the splendor of riches. But he did not shake the mind of the man; for he was an ingenuous lover of that natural beauty in which truth shines. What then says the blessed one? "I shall not deny God who created me; but the king’s riches I consider as soot and dust." D Defeated by these things, the adversary reported the failure to the tyrant. He, kindling the flame of his wrath with these words as if by the application of oil, ordered the martyr to be tortured by the official. And he, adding his own fury to the fury of the tyrant, ordered the blessed one to be brought out of custody. And as a giant, clothed with greatest dignity...
A in a tower of threats built up, he hoped indeed to cast the heavenly man down. But when this attempt proved vain, and that foolish swelling pride was dissolved by the steadfastness of the martyr, the prefect ordered him to be beaten abundantly with cudgels, bound after the Persian manner, adding this: "This is the reward for you for your noble disobedience; these are the gifts repaid to you for your refusal to obey the king’s honors; this is how you are to spend your life daily." But he said to the prefect: "The king’s riches are not sweet to me B (88), nor is the tossing of your threats bitter to me." Then the prefect, roused like a wild beast, raged, and devised a torture worthy of his madness. He ordered the blessed one to be loosened from his chains and, outstretched and lying supine, with his face turned toward heaven, to be laid upon the ground; then he ordered a log of wood to be placed upon his shins, and for immense men to stand on the ends at either side—you would say Otus and Ephialtes (89)—beating upon the bones of his feet C just as if they were fullers' stocks. But who could describe the magnitude of the pain suffered there? For my mind shudders, and recoils at even the thought of entering into the reflection of such a terrible torture. But the generous imitator of Christ, amidst such pains, behaved cheerfully and rejoiced in the torment of the wood; for, reflecting in his mind on the wood of Christ's cross and recalling the inverted crucifixion of Peter, he took delight in this new mode of his own crucifixion. And when the prefect saw that he was unassailable even by these torments, he ordered him to be transferred back into custody, D until he himself could cheerfully report the struggle to the tyrant. Meanwhile, since the tribune (90) who was in charge of the prison guards was a Christian, a brother sent from the monastery with every obstacle removed, he approached the saint, and with pious words he tended and wiped away the wounds inflicted by his impious pains, and as if with a bridle, he urged on a certain noble foal toward the completion of the struggle. Now, many Persians also who believed in Christ (91), and the children of Jesdin themselves, would visit the martyr, and they would kiss his feet and his chains, and taking hold of the hem of his garment with their hands, they prayed to be freed from the flow of their sins. Moreover, they desired to carry away some blessing (92) from his body for their own protection; but since he firmly refused, they poured wax onto his chains and obtained what they desired, at least expressed in the form of a figure, taking from his body something like an apostolic semicinctium (93).
A When a certain number of days had passed, the persecutor, emboldened to enter upon another struggle, appears at the prison. For since habit does not allow one who has been defeated to feel shame for the outcome, he rushes rather recklessly into the lists; and he says to the holy man: "Do you obey the king's commands, or your own?" But the blessed man, shaking his head and showing his contempt for his adversary's baseness by his expression, said that it was foolish to ask the same thing over and over again. For it is truly senseless to ask the victor what his resolve is regarding the contest. B Then, knitting his barbarian brow, he orders the holy man to be bound in the former fashion and, like gold from a mine being hammered, to have his body beaten with clubs. But when he saw that he [the holy man] was being further emboldened in his piety by the blows (for gold does not change when it is beaten, but is stretched out), he departed in grief from the stadium. Yet again he dared, with insolence, to advance to a pancratium, and attempted to try the martyr with both flattering promises and dire threats, and after ordering him to be bound again, he contended against him unjustly with clubs and rods. Afterwards, loosening the chains, he bound his hand with a rope and hung the blessed one up by it, having tied a stone to one of his feet; for he supposed that by that weight the martyr would be dragged down from his ascent to heaven. C But he, fixing his mind upon heaven with his right hand, was not in the least distracted by the foot stretched toward the ground. When two parts of the day had been wasted in this way, and he was unable, by applying such a struggle, to force the athlete to the ground, he went away to announce to the tyrant that he had abandoned all hope of victory. The tyrant, however, as one who had been defeated in the contest and had yielded, decided to bring the righteous man out immediately, thinking he had devised a brilliant scheme by which to consign his own disgrace to oblivion. And so, having sent others with the prefect (95), men in whom there was much cruelty and pride, he ordered the holy man to be put to death, and the tyrant gave those who had been his faithful associates in captivity as his companions in death as well. D Those men, then, having set out immediately, like the wildest of beasts incited by the goad of their belly to devour flesh, brought the blessed one and a multitude of men, thirty less than a hundred, to the river of the neighboring village of Bethsalo (96).
A Among them were those two who had come with the martyr from Caesarea to Persia. There, mingling threats with the enticements of gifts, they attempted to lead the holy man to apostasy. Meanwhile, bringing them out one after another, and tightening a noose around each one's neck, they fastened the rope to a peg, and then, leaving the whole body to its own weight, they strangled them, the spirit being choked by the tension, and led them to the martyr, saying: "How long, man, will death be sweet to you? Let the calamities of these men teach you not to be lacking in your own. Who would willingly accept torments in place of gifts? Who would prefer to join the wicked rather than live with the king? Who chooses the most shameful death instead of the most beautiful life? Do not spurn us as your counselors, whom the necessity of kinship makes [those who] advise you with fairness out of benevolence."
These things, and many more like them, they were saying all the time that the seventy men were being handed over to death, one after another, and the time of their punishment provided the assembly [with an opportunity] for public speaking, fearing what the outcome would be. But they were [only] trifling with the hope of what was to come, as they thought, for what is expected is fearful, but that which is sudden does not allow a time for fear. B What then did the blessed Anastasius do? Looking up to heaven with his eyes, and even more with his mind, he gave thanks to Christ, because he was attaining the desired goal, and then, turning to his persecutors, he said: "Is this that death of yours, so terrible? But to me, expecting far graver things, it is altogether cheapened. I thought I would be cut to pieces by you with countless tortures, and that the torments would exceed the number of my limbs. But now, at the cost of a small [and brief] death, I am numbered among the great soldiers of Christ."
Then, adding: "Into your hands I commend my spirit (101), Christ God of my salvation," he was constricted by the noose and placed a splendid crown upon his martyrdom. C Through these and such stoutly completed struggles, the excellent martyr received a crown, more precious than one distinguished by gold and gems, woven from the flowers of paradise, and obtained the joy of eternal goods, the reward of his fortitude.
But since the discourse, swept away by the sweetness of its subject, cannot satisfy its desire to speak, and does not of its own will release the martyr until he is taken up, just as Elisha [did not release] Elijah (104), let us indulge ourselves a little longer with the narrative. When the blessed end of the servant of Christ... On the twenty-second day of the month of January, in the eighteenth year of the reign of the most pious Heraclius, and the sixteenth of his son Constantine. By the twenty-second, Anastasius took the noose. D Anastasius, bearing the noose on his neck as a shining necklace, is adorned.
A His disciple received it, when the venerable head was severed from his body with a sword, so that they might show the mark impressed upon the neck to the tyrant. The tribune of the prison guards, therefore, not wishing the martyr’s body to be confounded among the multitude of corpses so that it could no longer be distinguished, took pains to set it apart from the heap. But the lictors, who were Hebrews B—exactly as they should be expected to be, since those who laid hands on Christ also contrive the death of Christ’s disciples—did not permit this. But when the sons of Jesdin heard of the completion of the martyr (for their servants had accompanied him in his struggle), they, disregarding the body burdened with wounds, bought off the cruelty of the lictors with money and set the body of the blessed one aside by itself. When night had come, and the time signaled that a work pleasing to God was now to be undertaken and pious theft not to be deferred, so that the body of the martyr might be fittingly laid in the sepulcher, a brother from the monastery, having taken with him the servants of Jesdin and certain monks dwelling there, proceeds to the place. But what oratorical power, trusting in communicative excess, could fittingly recount the miracle of the touch? A multitude of dogs, gathering around the saint, having cast off their nature’s raw-eating instinct, kept watch as if over a precious treasure of the Master. Then, howling a mournful bark and crying out lamentably, as if to offer a funeral dirge, they sang a tragedy, so to speak, over the body—and dogs felt shame for him whom his own kin felt no shame! And it happens in a way, conversely, that men... C D
become fiercer than dogs, and dogs become gentler than men. A When they saw this with their own eyes and heard it with their own ears, those who had arrived to bury the martyr immediately wrapped his body in fine linen and duly laid it to rest in the temple of the glorious athlete Sergius, which is about seven stades distant from the town of Bethsaloe (112): for it was altogether fitting that a martyr, adhering to a martyr, should rest under the same roof. B But when the sun had dispelled the darkness of the night and illuminated the earth with its rays, two prison guards began to converse with each other, speaking about the body of the martyr. "I saw," said one, "the corpse of that man, who we know has endured many torments, surrounded on all sides by a multitude of dogs, and they were stationed by the lifeless rampart, standing so motionless for the guarding of the body that they would neither go further away, nor approach closer to molest the corpse." And to me, indeed, considering the nature of the dogs, it seemed miraculous by what bridle they were held restrained there. "But it is far more miraculous," the other said, "what I am about to tell, such as perhaps no one has ever heard before. As I was leaving the night watch at early dawn, a star appeared on the ground, making the sight manifest by the brilliance of its splendor, and it enkindled in me an ever-growing desire to discern the matter more clearly. Therefore, I ran swiftly to that place, C desiring, if it might happen, to lay my hand upon the star; but when I had approached closer, there was no longer any trace of the star; but this dead man, of whom you also spoke, lying there, I found. Leaving, therefore, I had nothing else to do but to marvel at the sight." Some captives, faithful to Christ and skilled in the Persian tongue, who were nearby, overheard this conversation of the guards.
D Now when the tyrant Chosroes had paid the due penalty for his deeds, the two captives went to Jerusalem, to the place that had once been the training ground of the martyr's virtue, and they related to those living there everything they had heard and disclosed his memorable predictions. For the blessed one, while held in prison together with those two, had predicted that the coming dawn would bring an end to his own struggle (113); that punishment was prepared for the impious tyrant; and that they themselves would eventually be restored to their former liberty: and he therefore asked them to report, as soon as they reached Jerusalem, what the outcome of events had been. He also predicted to the brother from the often-mentioned monastery, who was thinking of returning home, that he would depart safe and unhurt without any danger. Which indeed happened a little while later, when the illustrious emperor Heraclius, shining forth like a bright star from a winter night, turned the night itself upon the barbarian, so to speak, —those who had come to the burial, were eyewitnesses and ear-witnesses, wrapped the body in fine linen, and laid it to rest in a manner worthy of God in the sanctuary of the athlete Sergius, which is situated about seven stades from Bethsala. For it was fitting, as is truly the case, for a martyr to dwell with a martyr. And when the sun, having driven off the gloom of night, had illuminated the earth with its rays, a pair of the guards began to converse with one another, having the body of the martyr as their subject. The one said, "I have seen the corpse, which we know has struggled through many tortures, surrounded by a multitude of dogs, and they were looking like some lifeless wall, rooted for the guard of the body, neither inclining further away, nor approaching closer to place anything in the mouth of the corpse." And to me, examining the nature of the dogs, it seemed a wonder by what bridle they were kept in check. But the other said, "More paradoxical than that, and such as one has not heard before. At the time of my departing from the night guard, a star was appearing to me on the ground at early morning, and it made the vision more manifest by the brilliance of its radiance, and made the longing for a more exact perception of the sight even sharper; I therefore walked quickly and was eager to cast my hand, so to speak, upon the star. But when I became near, no trace of the star was left; but the corpse, whom I myself had also seen, I find lying there. Departing, therefore, I had nothing else to do but to marvel at the sight." Some of the prisoners, faithful to Christ, who understood the Persian language, were listening to this conversation of the guards.
When, therefore, the tyrant Chosroes paid the fitting penalty, a pair of the prisoners went to Jerusalem, to the training ground of the martyr’s virtue, and narrated the hearing to those there. Then they also gave out the records of the blessed one's predictions, as he had foretold to them the future result for himself, and the punishment that was to come upon the avenger, and their own return to their ancient home; and as he had asked that, upon their arrival in Jerusalem, they should recount the outcome of affairs; and to the brother of the monastery who was planning his safe departure for home. As if emerging from a wintry night, the victorious emperor Heraclius shone forth, bringing clear weather to the Christians there, having transferred the night, so to speak, to the barbarian in a semicircle. Then, being asked the cause of the desire, he recounted the athlete's struggle, and went along with these through the land of the Armenians, and... [alt-version omitted]
returned to his own monastery, having as the reward of the personal recovery of the martyr the sheepskin of Elijah, A that is, the colobium. Having there set forth the whole narrative of the struggle, he recorded a marvelous miracle at the end. A certain man, he said, where I had deposited the precious body of the martyr, was possessed by an unclean spirit. And like a dog he would howl, fearful and terrifying, and, raving and leaping about like one possessed, striking his feet, and tossing his mane [hair] along with his neck hither and thither, he would bend back his head to his shoulder and entangle it; then, being overcome by the intensity of the fit, he would collapse and keep rolling on the ground, and he was gnashing his protruding tongue with his teeth, and shedding foul foam from his mouth. Having taken this B colobium, the superior of the monastery there—for he believed that the garment had shared in the grace of the martyr just as if it had partaken of a sweet fragrance—clothed the man with it; and immediately he is stripped of his affliction, and, standing up freed from his misfortune, with a pure tongue he praised Christ and the martyr. This is a token of the martyr’s grace, which is always welling up, just as a single drop bears witness to the sweetness of the entire fountain; for the provision of grace among the martyrs is inexhaustible, having Christ as the fountain of good things, who grants the living water to him who believes, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
MONITUM
That the reader might lack nothing of what Pisides wrote, we have gathered here with all the diligence we could all his Fragments, as many as it was permitted to extract either from codices or from printed books. We found some in a Vatican codex, others we received from Parisian codices; the rest we collected from Suidas, Theophanes, and Cedrenus. Jacob Lectius had indeed attempted this part of the work before, but he himself found only nine fragments to add to the Pisidean Hexaemeron, as may be seen among the ancient Greek Lyric poets, which he published on page 275. We, however, have collected so much from here and there that they have grown to ninety and more. Since, moreover, many of the items that are read in Suidas and Theophanes are not found among the books of Pisides extant today, it is perfectly clear that they were copied and recited by those authors from a book which has either perished or still lies hidden in the darkness of libraries. And as regards Suidas, there are indeed some Fragments in him that seem to pertain to the Pisidean Hexaemeron poem; C hence it is confirmed that this very work is mutilated, and the opinion and authority of Suidas himself becomes more probable, who, under the word "Cosmopoeia," testifies that the work of Pisides once consisted of nearly two thousand verses. In the common text of Suidas it reads "three thousand," but I believe I have rightly conjectured in the Preface that it should be restored to "two thousand"; and indeed, although I consulted many manuscript codices, I could not publish the whole work more copiously than from 1910 verses. Furthermore, the greatest part of the Fragments, which D were [left out of] Suidas...
anyone can easily understand that they were taken from a poem dealing with Chosroes and his destruction, if one does not find it wearisome to read them. Since Pisidas treated this same subject in the *Heraclias*, which we have brought to light, it must be said, then, that either he wrote another poem on Persian affairs, to which the senarii cited by Suidas are conveniently referred, or that the *Heraclias* itself was once comprised not of two parts, as it is now seen, but of three or more acroases, some portion of which is hitherto missing. Theophanes confirms this conjecture quite clearly, for since he did not hesitate to weave into his own narrative of the deeds of Heraclius many senarii of Pisidas, just as they came to his mind or seemed more suited to the elegance of his historical style, besides those which it is evident belong to the poem *On the Expedition*, he also interspersed other iambics elsewhere, designated by us under no. 177 and following, which are nowhere to be found in Pisidas, but yet can be from no one else but Pisidas: for, apart from the fact that there is no reason at all why such lines should be denied to the one to whom the first ones are recognized to belong, the meaning elicited from those Fragments persuades us enough: for they all tend either to the slaughter of Chosroes or to the expression of the victories of Heraclius, which are precisely the subjects in whose embellishment Pisidas was chiefly engaged. No one in his right mind, moreover, would deny that these very Fragments are shreds of iambics: for not to speak of those which anyone can easily understand to consist of their own number in the text of Theophanes itself, it would indeed be easy to restore others—with the words slightly changed—to their genuine reading, which, as it is fair to believe, they retained in the book of Pisidas. For if you organize the words which we described from Theophanes under no. 177 in this way:
*Let us take faith as the slayer of fears,* *Let us extinguish the fire, before it burns up everything,*
and redraft those under no. 182 in this way:
*Let us extinguish the fire, before it burns up everything,*
you will surely have iambics consonant with the laws of meter. Therefore, since there are many fragments in Suidas and Theophanes of Pisidas drawn from one and the same book, which nonetheless do not exist today among the works of Pisidas, it is absolutely certain that that book, or the acroasis which dealt with the final victory reported by Heraclius against the Persians, has perished.
BY THE SAME CERTAIN IAMBICS COLLECTED FROM EVERYWHERE BY THE SAME FRAGMENTS OF SENARII COLLECTED FROM EVERYWHERE
AOn Saint Paul. Plato is silent, and the Tanner speaks.
On the Gout. Gout, mother, why do you torment me, shaking me more than Cocytus? Your tomb will end my pain. For my part, beauty will no longer remain in that place.
NOTES. 1. This little verse is read repeated with this title in the Vatican codex 1126 at the end of the works of Pisidas; although it is taken from the small poem on the resurrection, as can be seen there, v. 27. It is fitting here to append the iambics of Theodore the Studite on Shoemakers from Sirmond, vol. V, p. 758: *Art is as the best of those who make sandals.* *For it is of the Apostle Paul, the great one.* O how great is the honor of the shoemaker’s art! For it is the art of Paul, the great Apostle.
2. From the same codex, Vat., Pisidas seems, I imagine, to have been suffering greatly from gout, which he therefore calls his mother, because he was still tender and being tormented by that pain. The dialogue, as it seems to me, is between Gout the mother and Georgios the son, who wished to express her wickedness and stubbornness: and it is that hackneyed saying of Ovid, *Pont.* I, 4: *Medicine knows not how to remove the knotted gout.* Compare, if you please, Lucian in his *Tragopodagra*, where immediately at the beginning Gout is called the daughter of Cocytus: *Gout, much-lamented, child of Cocytus...* *pain*, or *tension*; as if Pisidas were saying, "For me now pain will leave no beauty," or "on account of the intensity of the pain"; but I have dared to change nothing.
Fragments of Senarii
A As long as you live, I shall have matters to deal with you.
On holy Lazarus
He who crushed the discord-loving quaternion, Raised up the man who had been dead for four days.On the bird; to the Emperor Heraclius
This bird, but a short time ago a glutton, Having found the old men's grain to satiety, Was lifted to the height of carnal arrogance. But if your power commands, O Despota, Let the back be lashed, and fire applied, and may it learn How justice chastises the disorderly.On the Patriarch
Possessing a rational, and God-written book, The Patriarch Sergius [hath] his heart, The four-stringed lyre of the Apostles He joined into one, as if from one spirit.On a melon
A ripe melon loosens the bowels. But undiluted wine tames its boldness.On the Emperor Heraclius
Having donned a black-dyed sandal on your foot...NOTES
5. Thus does Pisidas answer the gout as she asks. 6. From the same Vatican codex. The Monophysites, because they did not wish to distinguish the natures from the hypostases in the way the Symmistae and Acephali did, were bringing two sons into Christ along with Nestorius, and were constituting a quaternity in the Trinity; concerning which matter more has been said by us in our poem *Against Severus*. But our Lord Jesus Christ showed himself to be one by hypostasis, yet of dual nature, most especially when he raised Lazarus from the dead; for as Saint Leo aptly and appropriately says in his epistle to Flavian (Tom. 1, p. 821): "It is not of the same nature to weep for a dead friend out of a feeling of pity, and to raise the redivivus by the command of his voice after the burden of four days of burial has been removed." Our author rightly calls the lover of discord *philechthron*; for it is wonderful how many dissensions and discords have arisen among Christians from that error. 7. He says "four-days-buried" Lazarus, whom he calls "dead four-days" in the poem *On the Resurrection*, v. 36. 8. From the same Vatican codex. I doubted for a long time and much what bird Pisidas intended, nor did it occur to me what certainty I might establish. Nevertheless, I thought some military standard was indicated here. For it is manifest that under the name of a bird a rapacious and savage race is allegorically signified. And that the Persians, besides the Romans, used the eagle as a military standard, is testified by Alexander ab Alexandro (Genial. dierum, lib. xv, cap. 2), saying: "For the Persians also a golden eagle upon an oblong spear was a military sign." I believe he said this trusting in the testimony of Xenophon; for the Greek historian says of Cyrus (Instit. lib. vii, cap. 1): "And there was for him a sign, a golden eagle extended on a high spear," and even today this sign remains with the King of the Persians. Therefore, I conjecture the *pamphagos* (gluttonous) bird was the eagle, or Chosroes preferring the eagle, who in the fifth and sixth year of Heraclius had occupied almost the entire Roman domain: for the eagle was the proper emblem of the king, not so much of the Persians, as the recently cited Xenophon testifies in *Exped. Cyri*, lib. 1, at the end. And the poet, following the allegory through those words, seems to signify: "This bird, so greedy and fierce, if you command, Emperor, will be beautifully plucked of everything, and roasted." 14. That Sergius the Patriarch of Constantinople wrote many things pertaining to Monothelitism, Pisidas often persuades us, who commends his "heaven-running discourses" and almost divine wisdom. But here he declares that he had clearly completed the concord of the four Gospels; for the "four-stringed lyre of the Apostles" could be nothing else, than that which Sergius demonstrated to be tempered by one spirit. 18. From the same Vatican codex. If there is any merit to be admitted, it consists entirely in the similarity of the Greek words, which we were not permitted to preserve for us in the Latin version. Regarding the properties of melons, see Dioscorides and Galen. Pliny, lib. xx, 6, says: "Melons, as they are called, are most cooling in food, and soften the bowels." 20. From the same Vatican codex. These are the two senarii which Cedrenus (p. 337) records that Pisidas suddenly uttered before Heraclius, who was about to go against the Persians, as does also Georgius Hamartolus in his unpublished *Chronicle*, although Allatius, in his *Diatr. de Georgiis*, p. 308, seems to have affirmed that he was little mindful of his own [source]. For I confess that I have found nothing similar in the Vatican codices which he points to, and from which he prepared his own version of Hamartolus. But concerning these two little verses we have already said more in the Prolegomena.
On the Most Holy Lady Theotokos
Woman, of women you are the glorious ornament, And the common salvation of the whole race. AOn the same, carrying the infant and gazing upon him
Seeing the ineffable nature in the flesh, Do you faint, O Lady, or are you even depicted?On the Crucifixion
A miracle, a miracle! At the fragile nature of the wood It has cut away the hardness of unbelief from hearts.On Saint Thomas
Moses fears even to behold the fire, But Thomas touches the flame with his hands, And from an unbeliever he becomes a perfect believer.On the Temple of Blachernae
If you seek a throne of God on earth, B(Note: Those things that follow this epigram on the temple of Blachernae were written, I think, by Pisida in the year 626, that is to say, after the Avars were forced to retreat from the city, which they had attempted to invade and overthrow; and he wrote them so that, engraved upon bronze or marble, they might be affixed above the doors of the temple. Both were first edited by Du Cange in his notes to Zonaras, Vol. II, page 65, from the Parisian royal library codex, which is now numbered 1650, as is manifest from the Catalogue. The same were reprinted after Du Cange by Banduri in *Imperium Orientale*, Vol. I, page 177, and by Fabricius, in *Bibliotheca Graeca*, Book V, part III, page 693. And Banduri indeed rendered them into Latin almost word for word, but Fabricius expressed them quite elegantly in iambic verses. More recently, however, Jacques Philippe d'Orville, in his *Animadversiones* on Chariton of Aphrodisias, page 332, brought to light only the first four iambs of Pisida, and likewise three others derived from I know not what source, in order to prove that Chariton himself spoke either ignorantly or absurdly in those things which he records about Callirrhoe, Book III: "But Callirrhoe alone wished to speak to Venus. Therefore, first she placed her son into the arms of the goddess; and a most beautiful sight appeared, such as neither painter had ever depicted, nor sculptor fashioned, nor poet described up to this time; for none of these artists made Diana or Minerva carrying an infant in her arms." C When the learned d'Orville read these things, he said: "I am amazed that Chariton, who we believe rightly lived after the times of Constantine, should have touted the goddess holding a boy in her arms as an invention so wonderful that no painter, nor sculptor, nor poet had ever imagined anything similar." These iambs recount such a painting or statue in a place near Constantinople.)
On the Temple of Blachernae
If, on earth, you seek a throne of God, Having seen the house, marvel at the Virgin. For she who carries God in her arms Bears him even to the reverence of this place.On the Theotokos carrying Christ
She who has given birth remains a Virgin still, And a Mother-Virgin; for the child is God, having willed to take on flesh. DA See and marvel at the temple of the Virgin. For she who carried God in her arms Now carries Him for the veneration of the place. Here those who are appointed to rule the earth Trust that they hold the victorious scepters in their hand. Here the watchful Patriarch averts Many calamities of the world; B The barbarians, indeed, having attacked the city, As soon as they saw her acting as the leader of the war, Flexed their untamed necks at once. Other. There had to be a second gate of God, The house of the Virgin, just as there was for the Son. The ark appeared, more divine than the former, Which did not carry the tablets written by God, But received God Himself within. C Here are fountains for cleansing the stains of the flesh, D [for the deposition of the precious garment of the Mother of God]. Therefore, all, so to speak, both high priests and kings, and as many as are subject to them, both those in office and rank, and those who pursue a private life, bring to the Theotokos in Blachernae thank-offerings for every common and private bright event; and for everything sorrowful, taking heart in Blachernae, they unload their burden; not to mention the countless number of those healed there from diverse diseases, lest I again diminish the...
excellence of the matter by the poverty of my speech. It is, therefore, to put it briefly, the divine temple of the Theotokos in the Blachernae which is the storehouse of all our saving hope, in which, and from which, we have received, and shall receive, whatever good thing there is or shall be. A And the souls' redemptions from sins. For as many as are the assaults of afflictions, She herself pours forth such gifts of miracles. There, having conquered his enemies, She destroyed them, not by the spear, but by water. For she who bore God, and shook the Barbarians, Has no capacity for shifting change. B
FRAGMENTS FROM SUIDAS. In the word 'Aγωγοί (Conduits). He turned himself towards the conduits of the Tigris. In the word 'Άμματα (Knots). But since he was at last within the knots, They bind him with a firmer fetter. In the word 'Ανεκτά (Bearable). The harm was not bearable to the neighbors.
NOTES. 49. As to the healing of both the infirmities of soul and body, he attributes the power to those waters; for *πάθημα*, he designates whatever diseases, by which either soul or body is afflicted. 51. See *De bello Avar.* 456. 54. Ibid. 9. 55. From a book hitherto unknown, Suidas adds that it is a discourse concerning Chosroes; that Pisida speaks of Chosroes, that is, of his flight from Dastagerd towards Ctesiphon, in which city, however, while the astrologers argued against it, as Theophanes says, p. 269, he did not trust to remain, but having crossed the Tigris river by the bridge into the city, he contends for Seleucia, as we call it. In the codex of the Coislinian library, formerly the Seguierian, which contains the Greek Lexicon, this senarius of Pisida is cited under the word *ἀγωγοί*; thus: *καὶ Πισίδης πρὸς τοὺς ἀγωγοὺς ἐτράπη τοῦ Τίγριος*. Suidas advises that the subject is Chosroes. 56. From a book not yet discovered; and here too Suidas notes that it treats of Chosroes. Therefore, concerning his captivity and death these things must be understood. Theophanes, p. 271, thus to the point: *Χοσρόης δὲ φυγὴν δοκιμάσας, καὶ μὴ ἰσχύσας ἐκρατήθη· τοῦτον δὲ δεσμήσαντες σφοδῶς σιδηροπέδαις καὶ ὀπισθάγκωνα, ταῖς τε ποσὶ καὶ τῷ τραχήλῳ βάρη σιδηρᾶ περιέθηκαν, καὶ εἰσάγουσιν αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ σκότους*. (Chosroes, having attempted flight, and not able to succeed, was seized; and binding him vehemently with iron fetters, and pinning his hands behind his back, they placed heavy iron weights upon his feet and his neck, and they lead him into the house of darkness.) 58. From the poem *De bello Abar*. See ibid. v. 25. Suidas explains the word *ἀνεκτά* thus: *ὑπομονῆς ἄξια ἃ τελῶ* (worthy of the endurance which is paid).
FRAGMENTS OF SENARII
A *On the word* 'Antlia (Bilge). From those which possess foul bilges.
*On the word* 'Apphēxai (To break off). Which if we were to keep silent, the stones perhaps Would break forth with accounts of what has been done.
*On* 'Apospondon (Un-libated/Unmixed). Leaving behind this un-libated drunkenness, And all the mire of alien songs.
*On* 'Atromētos (Intrepid). Fleeing intrepidly, and running he returns.
*On* 'Acheiros (Handless). Footless, handless, it does not weigh upon the neck. Complete are the structures of the individual members.
*On* Bakchos (Bacchus). For it was possible to see many Bacchuses against their will Dancing their final dance.
*On* Byousi (They block/close). I will tell you now, if you are not willing to close [your ears].
*On* Gigantiā (To play the giant). He plays the giant, and wishes also to play the tyrant.
*On* Dioptra (Sight-glass). These things you see long since through your sight-glass.
*On* Diplōē (Double-fold). It checked the missile hurled against me, The double-fold of the chiton as it fell upon it.
*On* Dynamis (Power). Having joined the five powers of Archimedes into one, B To move with difficulty The burdens of the stubborn projections.
*On* Aietos (Eagle). Whose nature is not inferior to thirst,
C [NOTES]
59. From the poem *Contra Severum*. See ibid. v. 621. 60. From the book *De exped.*, v. 39, where *λίθος* (stone) is read instead of *πέτραι*. 62. From a book not now available. And rightly so, for regarding this fragment, Kuster could not speak about all [of them] in what he noted here: "I warn once that all things which are read in Suidas are [Pisida's excerpts]—one or two excepted—drawn from books of his which do not exist today." Moreover, the poet seems to praise the Romans, because, kindled by the studies of war, they scorned with a brave spirit the soft discipline of the Persians. Confer v. 441 and following of the *Acroasis De exped.*, if you wish to better grasp the intent of Pisida. These senarii are rendered by Lectius: "Leaving behind this most infestious crapulence, and the whole troop of barbarian songs." 63. From a book perhaps lost. That it is a matter of meter is certain; one must read *φεύγων ἀτρομήτως*. Suidas notes that Pisida is speaking about a Persian. 65. From the *Heracliados Acroasis* I, v. 45. Suidas rightly notes that it concerns the cruelty of Chosroes. 67. From an unknown book. He not inaptly calls those who are given to the impudicities and obscene dances of the Persians "Bacchuses." See above v. 62. It is patent, however, that Pisida describes the final war in which Chosroes was overthrown. 69. From the poem *Contra Severum*, v. 508. But there, for *εἰ βύειν θέλεις*, rightly, as the sense suggests, is read *εἰ βύεις*, again. D 70. From the *Heracliados Acroasis* I, v. 50. Suidas notes that this was said regarding Chosroes. 71. From a book not yet found. He speaks as if to Heraclius, the poet tells us. 72. From the same book, and certainly in the discourse to Heraclius; for Pisida often, out of reverence, says *ὑμᾶς, ὑμῶν, ὑμῖν* (you, of you, to you) for *te, tui, tibi* (you, of you, to you) when he addresses the Emperor. The sense of the first senarius, if I am not mistaken, is this: "It checked the missile hurled at you," etc. Theophanes, page 265, bears witness that Heraclius received many wounds in the Persian war. 74. From the same [book], it seems, and from the book regarding Heraclius, and regarding the machines built by him for the storming of Dastagerd, the royal city in which Chosroes was residing, as is gathered from the *Heracliados Acroasis* II, v. 210 and following. Hence Suidas rightly notes that Pisida here deals with geometric faculties. But in the following verse, Portus and Kuster thought that for *Συνάψας ὅλην* one should read *Ὅλην συνάψας* for the sake of the meter. And this [is] indeed correct, if only the prosody is considered. But what *συνάπτειν εἰς μίαν ὅλην* signifies, I do not see. I would prefer that *συνάψας* be read *ὁλκῇ*, "[he] drew together in one traction, in one force," [he] joined together at the same time. Therefore I would render these three senarii thus: "When Heraclius had joined the five faculties of Archimedes into one, so that the burdens, which could scarcely be bent and moved, of the machines might be pushed." See *Heracliados Acroasis* II, v. 214. Among the fragments edited by Lectius, these senarii are rendered thus: "When Archimedes brought his five forces together into one machine, so that it might scarcely push with weight the immense burdens from their place."
[A] Nor again does its hardness stand in need of a wrestling ground; But it is superior to both thirst and cold. *In v. Terrestrial.* When you have finished this, best of men, an unknown journey, Just as if traversing a terrestrial course. *In v. Pledge.* Now let the moon shine with full orb, Pledging as Chosroes assents, That the Persians shall no longer render divine honors to created things. *In v. Heavy.* B You came within the shields with heavy speed. *In v. Gnat.* Constricting them on every side like gnats. *In v. Dwell-in.* For as it seems, misfortunes, Provoked by recent distresses, Produce impulses stronger than one's deliberations. *In v. Inspired.* And the unlawful pleasures of the Barbarian, Inspired by the heat of drunkenness, They kindled yet more. *In v. Collector.* So that you may render to the collecting angels The account of debts and of interests. *In v. Increase.* For the increase of swords and of stones. *In v. Master.* As a subtle master of the writings. C *In v. Being cautious.* You were not cautious of troublesome diseases. *In v. Evening.* Who taught the loud-voiced cock within the roof To indicate the delays of the night? *In v. Hedgehog.* But Nereus gives to the hedgehogs in the deep of the sea Eyes with which they may foresee the future, So that they may flee from the troubles of the storm before the storm.
FRAGMENTS OF SENARII
A *On the verse: "If it were prayerful."* If the ferocity of Persia Had been extinguished.
*On the verse: "For I was one of the vociferous ones."* For I too was one of the shouting ones.
*On the verse: "Heraclean."* Attracting all, as a Magnes stone, Or, to speak more correctly, the Heraclean stone; For he himself possesses a more attractive nature.
*On the verse: "Evils."* And all, as in a panegyris of evils, One was struggling with one calamity, another with another. Winning in battles, and instructing in battles.
*On the verse: "Kibdelos."* Of two things absolutely One is a fraudulent craftsman, as the story goes.
*On the verse: "Ministry."* That you may repay of debts and interest 15 Entirely and simply all spiritual ministry.
*On the verse: "Robbers."* In the paradise of the famous battle Become robbers.
*On the verse: "He acts as midwife."* The whole Roman race acts as midwife to you, B Squeezing out your praises, as milk.
*On the verse: "Toil."* He had no toil for the course of the Euphrates.
*On the verse: "Newly-drawn."* And this newly-drawn phalanx, Having himself run toward the East, and having gone through the passages, arrived at the face of the Barbarian, and having crossed the Nymphios river, he reached the Euphrates.
NOTES.
103. From a book hitherto unknown. But the discourse is regarding Heraclius: it is clear that Pisidas is speaking thus of himself, who was a companion to Heraclius in the first expedition against the Persians.
105. From the same book, it seems. We must not doubt that Pisidas is speaking of himself, who was a companion to Heraclius in the first expedition against the Persians.
106. In the same book: it deals with the humanitarian spirit, by which Heraclius was binding the souls of the soldiers to himself, which Pisidas also declares elsewhere. See *Acroases* 1, *On the Expedition* and *Acroases* 2, v. 163, *Heracliad*. Therefore I do not praise the version of Portus, who, not having understood that this was acting concerning Heraclius, translated it less accurately: *He attracts all no otherwise than a Magnes stone, or Herculan, if you wish to call it so: for he has a more efficacious power of attracting.* But I would render it thus: *Attracting all, as a Magnes stone, or as I might better say, as the Heraclean stone; for he himself, namely Heraclius, has a more efficacious power of attracting than that stone.* Moreover, Pisidas knows this stone not as Herculean, nor Herculan, as if from Hercules, but Heraclian, or Heracleian, because it received its name from the city Heraclea, which is why it is also sometimes called Heracleotis. And indeed, Pisidas seems to have indicated the difference which exists between the Heraclian stone and the Magnes, when he said, *or to speak more correctly*, for these differ much from each other, as Suidas, Hesychius, and Helladius noted in their *Chrestomathia*, and Salmasius explained more clearly in *Exercit. Plin.* 775 and 776. Appositely, however, as is clear, Pisidas named it the *Heraclean stone*, because by the similarity of the name, and the property preserved, he appropriately referred these things to the Emperor Heraclius.
109. From the same book: and [those] put to flight are to be understood.
111. From the same book, of several iambics [fragments].
112. From the same book, it seems, regarding Chosroes: although it is not sufficiently clear how these things are said of Chosroes. In the reading, this senarius is rendered thus: *However, the matter is clearly two-fold, the fraudulent one, as it were, is the one craftsman, as the rumor is.* The sense is, as it seems, that in two entirely different matters, the fraudulent one is, as they say, only one craftsman.
114. They are read without interpretation in Suidas. And Kusterus indeed noted these things: *I have left this passage unexplained, since its sense is entirely obscure, nor from so brief a fragment could we divine the intention of the author. We must know, however, that most of the fragments of Pisidas which are read in Suidas, on account of their brevity, are very obscure, to which light cannot be brought; since the work of that writer, from which Suidas copied them, has perished today.* But Kusterus did not see that these iambs, slightly interpolated, do not differ from the superior ones, which are read under the word *epiktos*. They are, however, held to be complete, and arranged in their own order in the *Hexaemeron*, v. 1481 and 1487.
116. From the same book, unknown. Perhaps thus Heraclius exhorted his soldiers, when they were about to fight against Chosroes.
118. From the same book: nor can there be a doubt that this discourse is concerning Heraclius, the conqueror of the Persians.
120. From the same book. Regarding Heraclius, Theophanes narrates thus, p. 261: *And having gone forth through the exits, by which one goes into the Orient, he went in opposition to the barbarian, and having crossed the Nymphios river, he arrived at the Euphrates.*
121. From the same book.
[Fragments of Senarii]
A Seeing especially the money, which is the sinew of war, flowing to the Barbarians.
In v. Nymphios.
And having crossed the greatest Nymphios, which, when it mingles its waters with the Tigris, is deprived of being called Nymphios.In v. Woods.
Supplying woods, both so many and strange.In v. Bulk.
For having divided the army into three bulks, he drew thy soldiers, seeming to run around.In v. Gadfly.
For it is a mad impulse, and especially for Barbarians, to be easily inclined toward changes.In v. To make, possess.
And all of us thou willest to make, and to make children to God daily.In v. Transgression.
Having joined the transgressor with a false guest, before the battle thou hast let go to the adversary.In v. They buy food.
If thou dost not commit fraud, and desirest to buy food on the sly from those who possess the foul bilge-water.In v. Hardness.
... And hardening the humors, and changing them into stone in a stony way.In v. I was displeased.
But if he is at leisure, he is displeased at drunkenness.In v. Stagirite.
What kind of generals or Stagirites having, didst thou come into the country of the prosperous Barbarians?In v. Calamity.
From the immense calamity of the streams.In v. Pipe.
Who taught the bee, that wise worker, the geometry of Euclid’s law, and to build the cells not in a straight line?NOTES 122. From the *Heracliads*, book 1, v. 165. 124. From a book not yet found. See above, the iambic 120, which in the poem of Pisides perhaps lost, was read written after these three senarii. 127. From book 1 on the Expeditions, v. 61. See there what we noted concerning the meaning of the word *hyle*, under which word the same senarius of Pisides is found cited again in Suidas without the author’s name. 128. From the same book; the discourse is about Chosroes, or his general. 132. From the same book. The Barbarians are Persians. 135. From the same book, and it seems these things are said of Heraclius, whose piety Pisides often extols with immoderate praises. I admit, however, that these things seem to fit Sergius better, who is praised by our poet with a similar kind of praise in the poem *On the Vanity of Life*, v. 132. 138. See our annotations. 139. Regarding the generation of hail according to the mind of Aristotle. See *Hexaem.* v. [..] and following. 140. From an unknown book. Perhaps about Chosroes. 141. From the *Heracliads*, book 1, v. 159. These senarii are translated by Portus: "What kind of generals having with thee, or Stagirites, dost thou invade the fields of the happy Barbarians?" 143. From an unknown book. Suidas knows about "snow," a discourse on snow, whence is the correct interpretation of Portus. And "snow" or "a collection of snow" or "of hail," which flows down, brought by some pull into the earth. I would prefer, however, it to be rendered not "from excessive," but "from an immense supply of snows." For it is certain entirely that Pisides indicates here that which Theophanes narrates to have happened to Heraclius fighting in the middle of Persia, p. 257: "Then indeed a miracle entirely unusual and worthy of horror happened: for around the summer solstice the air became dewy and cooling, refreshing the Roman army, so that they took up good hopes of successful events to come." 144. In the poem *On the Hexaemeron*, v. 1166; where these senarii are read, clearly better.
A *In v. Syro.* The army draws near to us with a run. *In v. Sphyzei.* You leap up, Achilles, and are drunk in your mind. *In v. Tautotes.* Confused by the identity of tears. For joy often also nourishes joy, And by tears someone awakens tears. *In v. Telma.* It turns rivers into land, and stones into marshes. *Teloneion.* I wished, moreover, to speak with you at length In your narrow toll-house. *In v. Tonon.* For it drew them, just as the power of the sun Draws the moisture to itself. *In v. Tropos.* The Barbarian [is so] in speech and in manner. *In v. Tyche.* You did not fear the adverse fortune on our account, If one ought to call sins "adverse fortune." *Ypeseleuseis.* But Chosroes sustained various And grievous tortures. *Ypopsea.* The safe suspicion of things that have passed. *In v. Phthoe.* The equestrian wasting disease. *In v. Chroma.* These things are not painted for the sake of charm; For all the words of truth are simple. *In v. Psephos.* He pronounced the judgment of the black pebble.
FROM THE CHRONOGRAPHY OF THEOPHANES
Heraclius arrived from Africa with turreted ships, B having on their masts small chests, and images of the Mother of God, just as Georgius Pisidus also says. But having taken in his hands the Theandric (God-man) form, Which hands did not fashion, but such as it is in the picture, The Word which fashions and remolds all things, Brought forth a formation without drawing, just as without seed He brought forth a birth; and trusting in this God-written figure, D he began the struggles.[alt-version omitted]
*NOTE.* 147. From an unknown book. 148. From the same, perhaps. Here the senarius is rendered as *Lectio*: "Your heart throbs, Pelide, and you are drunk in mind." 149. From the *Acroases*, in *De exped.*, v. 133. 152. From the same book, v. 511. Here the senarius is rendered as *Lectio*: "He makes fields from the waters, and a marsh from the rocks." 155. From the poem *On Severus*, v. 491. 155. From an unknown book, but it is a discourse on Heraclius. See above, v. 106. 157. From the *Acroases*, in *De exped.*, v. 17. 158. From the *Acroases*, in *De exped.*, v. 170, where we have supplied the second senarius, which was missing in the codex, from this fragment of Suidas. 160. From an unknown book. I have noted regarding the death of Chosroes above, v. 56. 162. From the poem *On the Bellum Avaricum*, v. 43. 165. From an unknown book. 166. These two senarii are from Suidas in the lexicon of Budé, under the word *chrozō*. 167. I do not think the place that Theophanes assumes to be in Pisida is anything other than the twelfth iambic [canto] and those following, which are read in the *Acroases* of the *Heracliad*; for there it is said that Heraclius, protected by the image of the Virgin Mother of God, first encountered Phocas, whom he likens to a voracious beast. 168. Compare the narration of Theophanes with the senarii 159 and the following pieces of the *Acroases De exped.*
A For he sought to obtain authority over the soldiers through affection rather than through fear. But when he found the army dissolved by sloth, by dejection of spirit, by a lack of order, and nearly mangled by confusion, and dispersed into various parts of the provinces, he soon and expeditiously gathered them all into one. Hence, all together, as if with a single voice, lauded the strength and spirit of the emperor. They even flooded the altars of bloodless sacrifices with murderous slaughter, and stained the Churches, still immune from every stain, with most base pleasures. It was truly a fearful spectacle to behold, being without slaughter and danger; an impulse to slaughter without blood, and proofs of war without necessity, so that, taking the lesson from a slaughter which no danger accompanied, each might remain more secure. He could not form a firm plan for undertaking any work, and he cursed the star formerly worshipped by them with all manner of dire imprecations. He occupied the peaks of the mountains in the manner of gazelles, and from on high he looked down upon the excellent order composed according to the precepts of military discipline, and he exposed the fearful state of the barbarians most clearly. Who, I ask, would have hoped that the race of the Persians, invincible in arms, would ever turn its back to the Romans? "Men, my brothers, let us bring the fear of God into our souls; let us stand with a brave spirit against the enemies, by whom Christians have until now suffered so many adversities. Let it shame us that the majesty of the Roman empire, hitherto untamed, should succumb to barbarians, and let us oppose an invincible strength to the enemies who wield impious arms. Let us gird ourselves with faith, the conqueror of death and of all fear. Let us consider that we stand in the heart of the Persian territory, and that flight carries with it great danger. Let us avenge the defilement of our virgins. D You have enlarged our hearts, O Lord, where You have opened a mouth for praying and for persuading; Your words have sharpened our swords." So that all, having been poured out in tears, prayed with vows for him, that after that pernicious pestilence of the whole world, Chosroes, had been killed, he himself might finally emerge as the liberator of all Persia. And he soothed the spirits of the soldiers with admonitions of this kind. 180 And he took them with exhortations, saying:
A Let not the multitude, brothers, disturb you; For God willing, [one] Roman shall put a thousand to flight. See you, O Chosroes, with what boldness Caesar joins battle, And alone contends against such a multitude, and as sand cast up by the wind, spits out [his] darts, and arrows? But Heraclius wrote to Chosroes: I pursue you, and strive to enter into peace; for I do not willingly lay waste to Persia, but being compelled by you. Let us cast down [our] arms, and let us embrace peace; let us extinguish the fire, before the whole mass is consumed.
FROM THE HISTORIES OF GEORGE CEDRENUS.
B Seeing him thus praying with such humility, George the Pisidian said: O Emperor, having put on a black-dyed sandal, you shall dye it red with Persian blood.FROM THE HISTORY OF NICEPHORUS CALLISTUS.
(Book XVIII, ch. 48). George the Pisidian, strongly refuting the absurdity of the error, recounts it in this way: He computes one and then another, C But if you call one and one, one, Even children will laugh at what is said.FROM THE COMMENTARIES OF ISAAC TZETZES.
On the iambic of Lycophron 1467: "I came reporting a crooked [account], O King, that narrative." "I came reporting a crooked [account]"; it is enigmatic, whence also Apollo is called Loxias; either because he rendered responses and voices crookedly and obscurely — for his oracles were tangled — or because he moves and proceeds crookedly; for he is the same as the sun, and the sun proceeds crookedly through the circle of the Zodiac: "As the vehemence of [his] movement, unswerving, D Is repressed by the opposing courses," as the Pisidian says.INDICES.
INDEX TO DUCANGE’S PREFACE TO THE PASCHAL CHRONICLE
(The reader is referred to the numerals placed in brackets.)
A Era among the Greeks, triple, XVII. Which era Cyril of Scythopolis used, XVII. Which Hippolytus used, XVIII. Which the author of the Chronicle and Epiphanius used, XX. Andreas Darmarius, II. Year of Christ’s passion according to the ancient Fathers, XIX. Ausonius wrote Fasti, XXXVI. Ausonius explained, XXXII.
B Bissextile years noted in the Fasti, XXXIV.
C Authors of the Paschal Chronicle, two, VII. Chronicle edited by Canisius and Labbe ascribed to Hippolytus, XIV, XV. Chronicle of George, Bishop of Amiens, IV, V, VI. Paschal Chronicle wrongly called Alexandrian, IV, IX. Called by others Constantinople, IX. Why called Paschale, IX, X. Vatican Codex of the Paschal Chronicle, XXXVIII. Consularia, XXXVI. Consulships digested by four-year periods, XXXII. Cycle of 532 years, or Great Year, when invented, XXVI, XXVII. Its various beginnings, XXVII, XXVIII.
D Gods of the Gentiles were once kings, XIII.
F Fasti of the Paschal Chronicle, whence transcribed, XXXI. Fasti Consulares added to the Paschale, XXXI. Digested by lustrums, XXXII. Greek Fasti edited by H. Dodwell, XXXVIII. Fasti Idatiani, XXXV. Sicilian Fasti, why called Paschal Chronicle, I, II. Founders of Fasti, various, XXXVI.
H Heraclius the Emperor wrote on ecclesiastical calculation, XXV. Heron the Confessor, who, XV, XVI. Hippolytus of Portus’ Chronicle, XXI. Paschale and Canon Paschalis, XIII, XI, XX. His various writings, XII. When he suffered martyrdom, XIV. Hippolytus the presbyter deported to Sardinia, XVII.
J John Philoponus’ work on the Paschate, XXIV.
L Books ought to be printed with their faults, XXXVI. Julian lustrums, XXXI.
M Maximus (St.), whether he should be considered the author of the Paschal Chronicle, XX, XXIV. Macedonian months, XLI. Metrodori, various, XXVI.
O Alexandrian Olympiads, VI. Olympiads, when they ceased to be reckoned, XXXI. Olympiads described in the Chronicle, XXXIV. Iphitus, ibid. Olympiads, or Julian lustrums, XXXIII. Julian lustrums given the name of Olympiads, XXXI. Olympic games, when abolished, XXXII.
P Panodorus the Egyptian, XVI. His era, ibid. Paschale of Metrodorus, XXVI. Paschal Tables among Greeks and Latins, XXVIII, XXIX. Attached to Paschal candles, XXIX, XXX. Paschalia praised by Photius, XXV. Paschalia of the later Greeks, XXX. Paschalia compiled from the very beginning of the world, XX. Paschalia of Anianus, Panodorus, St. Maximus, and Bede, XXI. Paschalia, IX. Twofold method of composing them, X. Controversies about the Paschate under Heraclius, XXV. Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, martyr, V. Portus, the city of which Hippolytus is said to have been bishop, which, XVI. Preface of the author concerning the Paschate prefixed to the Paschal Chronicle, XXXV. Use and utility of prefaces, I.
R Rader’s Latin version, XXXIX. Antiquity of the Christian religion, how proved by the Holy Fathers, XI, XII.
S Cult of Serapis in the region of Portus and Ostia, XVI.
T Paschal Tables, VII.
V Mixed-barbarous words of the Chronicle, XL.
INDEX TO THE PASCHAL CHRONICLE
(The reader is referred to the pages of the Ducange edition, which we have expressed in larger numbers.)
A Aaron is born, 63. First high priest, 79. His sepulcher, 157. Habakkuk, 119, 130, 142, 150. Abdera, 39. Obadiah (Abdin) the prophet, 26, 119. Abdonai the prophet, 97, 98. Abel, 20. Abenner, 81. Abesmaul, 161. Abiathar the high priest, 85, 91.
A Abilina, 208. Abimelech the high priest, 80, 81, 95. Abiud king, 79, 91. Abraham, 49, 50, 51, 52. Absalom, 83. Absirtus, 111. Abyrtum, city, 269. Acarnania, 27. Achab king, 97. Achaia, 27. Achaz king, 109, 114, 115. Achias, 91. Achias the Shilonite, 91, 93. Achilleus, 314, 315. Achitob the high priest, 97. Acrisius, 38. Acrita, city, 389. Acropolis at Constantinople, 265. Acynicum, city, 303. Adam, 19, 20. Called God, 23. This man, Marcion the heretic said, was condemned, 260. Adiani, 53. Adramelech the Ethiopian, 108, 116. Adoc, 91. Adonis, 37, 130. Adriace, 27. Ealon the judge, 81. Edessa, 267. Egyptians, from whom they arose, 28, 32. Egyptus son of Belus, 42. Aia king of Israel, 95. Aelia, 35. Aemilianus (St.) martyrdom of, 297. Aemilianus prefect of the City, 308. Aeolia, 30. Aeschylus reigns at Athens, 101. Aeschylus the poet, 169. Aesculapius, 79. Libyan Ethiopians, 28. Ethiopia, various, 29, 30. Aetius, prefect of the City, 310, 317. Aetolia, 27. Afri, from whom they arose, 26. Africa, whence so named, 169. Defection of Africa under Phocas, 382. Africanus the historian, 267. His death, 268. Agar, 52. Agareni, whence so named, 52. Agenor, 42. Haggai the prophet, 130, 142, 151. Agrippa king of Judea, 229, 230, 246. Agrippea, city, 193. Ain, 107. Ainon, 107. Ala, a city fortification, 397. Alamossyni, 34. Alasseni, 30. Alba, 109. Albani, 27. Albania, 27, 30. Alcimus the high priest, 179. Alcippe gives birth to an elephant, 248. Alexander the Great, 177, 207. Transfers the bones of Jeremiah to Alexandria, 170, 171. Alexander the Great founds the Strategium of Byzantium, 265. Alexander king of Syria, 180, 181. Alexander Severus, emperor, 268. Alexander bishop of Jerusalem, 270. Alexander bishop of Constantinople, 285. Alexander, prefect of the praetorian guard under Heraclius, 391. Alexander's Bath at Constantinople, 337. Alexandria in Egypt founded, 193, 207. Alexandria the Great, 341. Defects from Phocas, 382. Alexandrias, various, 170, 171. Alaric's slaughter, 318. Alorus king of the Chaldeans, 23. B Amphipolis, 35. Amplias, 213. Anabathmi, 234. Amanelus the high priest, 190. Ananias the prophet, 94, 95. Ananias false prophet, 120, 130. Anargiscus, master of the soldiers, killed, 317. Anastasia, daughter of the emperor Valens, 304. Anastasia, daughter of the emperor Maurice, 378, 380. Anastasian Baths, 304. Anastasius, patriarch of Antioch, 337, 382. Anastasius, emperor, 328. His dream, 331. Anastasius, presbyter and syncellus, 386, 387. Anathema, what it is, 367. Ancus Marcius, king of the Romans, 120. Ancyra, 33. Andrew (saint), apostle, 212. Church of St. Andrew in Constantinople, 306. Andromeda, 39, 40. Andronicus, 177. Andubarius, 56. Angels of God, who they are, 22, 23. Angeli, a place in Alexandria, 252. Angelic hymn, 22. Malachi the prophet called "Angel," 142, 152. Anianus, domestic, 390. Annas the high priest, 207, 228. Year's beginning on March 21st, 75, 211, 216, 219, 220, 222, 225, 229, 288. Years of the Egyptians, 45. Years of the captivity of the Jews, 143. Years of the Syro-Macedonians and Apamians, 171, 320. Years of the Ascalonites, 182. Years of the Seleucians, 182. Years of the Philadelphians, 185. Years of the Gazans, beginning, 274, 288. Years of the Commagenians, 248. Years of the Samosatenians, 248. Years of the Antiochians, 187, 294, 320, 328, 331, 334. Years of the Petraeans and Bostrenians, 253. Annibalianus, called king, 286. Annunciation of the Mother of God, 198. Anthemius, prefect of the praetorian guard, 308. Anthemius, emperor, 320, 323. Anthimus (saint), martyr, 277. Antinoe, city, 231. Years of the Antiochians, 187. See Years. Antioch, founded by Seleucus Nicanor, 41. Antioch the Great, 311, and elsewhere. Antiochus, a district in Constantinople, 339. Antiochus, king of Syria, 177. Antipater, defender of Antioch, 339. Antipater the Ascalonite, 189, 190. Antipatris, 193. Antonius the triumvir, 187, 189, 190. Antoninus Heliogabalus, emperor, 267. Antoninus Caracallus, emperor, 267. Aod, 78. Apamia, 35. Years of the Apamians, 171.
Index to the Paschal Chronicle
C Apologia for the Christians, 253. Aper, prefect of the praetorian guard, 274. Aphraus, son of Saturn, 36. Apion the patrician, 331. Apocalastice, 10. Apollinaris the heretic, 257, 296. Temple of Apollo in Constantinople, 263. Apollo, one of Christ’s disciples, 214. Apollonias, 35. Apollonius, governor of Syria, 177, 178. Apollonius of Tyana, his telesmata, 250. Mors, 251. Apostolium, 320. Bodies of the Apostles buried, 216. Dedication of the church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople, 381, 384. Appia, disciple of Christ, 226. Apsarus, 31. Aqueduct of Hadrian in Constantinople, 335. Aquila, one of Christ’s disciples, 213. Aquila, father-in-law of the emperor Hadrian, an astronomer. Abjures Christianity, 255. Aquileia, 35, 110. Aquileia, city, 269. Church of St. Acacius in Constantinople, 358. Aquitanians, from whom they arose, 26. Arabs, whence they arose, 50, 51. Inner Arabs, Mesopotamians, 35. Aramossyni, 31. Arbela, 35. Arca, city, 35. Arca, 347. Where the ark of the Law was stored, 137. Arcadia, daughter of the emperor Arcadius, 306. Is born, 307. Arcadian Forum, 313. Arcadianae, a bath in Constantinople, 306. Arcadian cohort, 327. Arcadius, emperor, 304, 306. His wedding, ibid. Statue, 313. Arcadius, prefect of the praetorian guard under Zeno, 328. Archaicus, one of Christ’s disciples, 214. Church of the holy Archangels, 389. Archelais, city, 267. Archelaus, king of the Jews, 191, 206, 220. Archimedes, 171, 175. Arch-eunuch, 302. Ardaburius, Count of the Orient, 321. Is killed, 323. Areobindus, 321. Husband of Juliana. See Juliana. Areobindus the patrician, 330. Aretas, king of the Petraeans, 219. Portico of the Silversmiths in Constantinople, 337. Silver coin struck at Rome, 173. Argives in Syria, 42. Argos, 35. Ariadne, wife of the emperor Zeno, 321. Marries the emperor Anastasius, 329. Arians harassed by the emperor Leo the Great, 323. Arianzus, an estate, 370. Aristarchus the philosopher, 180. Aristarchus, one of Christ’s disciples, 214. Aristides, exile, 161. Aristobulus the Jew, philosopher, 178. Aristobulus the high priest, 184, 188, 199, 208. Aristobulus, one of Christ’s disciples, 213. Aristogiton, 145. Ariston's Apologia for the Christians, 253. Aristophanes, 169. Arius the heretic, condemned in the Council of Nicaea, 257, 282. Armatus, master of the soldiers, is killed, 324, 325. Persian Armenia, 299. Aetius, provost, 330. His death... Apelles, one of Christ’s disciples, 213. Armenians, whence arising, 51, 52, 194. DA 1759 INDEX IN CHRONICON PASCHALE.
Armodius, 145. Arphaxad, 46. Arrach Deus, 116. Arriant, peoples, 31. Arsacia, 35. Arsacius, bishop of Constantinople after Chrysostom, 307. Arsacius, master of the soldiers, 308. Arsenoitis, 31. Arsiochus, king of the Persians, 170. Artabanus, king of the Persians, 162. Artabanus, a citizen of Antioch, established civil bread [distribution], 202, 203. Artaxerxes Longimanus, king of the Persians, 162. Artaxerxes Ochus, king of the Persians, 168, 170. Artemas, one of Christ’s disciples, 213. Artemius, duke of Egypt, 297. Asa, king, 94, 93. Asaph, prophet, 85. Ascalon, city, 293. Years of the Ascalonites, 182. Asclepius, killed by Domitian, 230. Asia Major, 35. Asinus, called Justinian, 358. Asoa, 28. Asoed, 91. Asopus, 35. Asor, 107. Aspar, patrician, 319, 321. He is killed, 323. Wooden, leathern asses, 117. Assyrii, 30. Assyrii the Second, 31. Astacia, called Nicomedia, 174. Astarte, 92. Astyages, king of the Medes, 141, 142. Astynome, 37. Asyncritus, one of Christ’s disciples, 213. Ataulfus, killed by Honorius, 309. Athalaricus succeeds Theodoric, king of Italy, 327. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, 285. Athanasius, count of the largesses, 380. Athanasius, patrician, 393, 394. Athens, taken by Xerxes, 166. Athenais, wife of the Emperor Theodosius the Younger. Her history, 311. Athenians use 24 elements, 167. Athira, city, 337. Attalus, tyrant, killed, 310. Atticus, patriarch of Constantinople, 309. Attila, king of the Huns, 315, 317. His death, 318. Autyca, 27. Augustamnica, 266. Augusteum at Constantinople, 281, 321, 337. Augustus. See Octavius. Augustus, the month called Sextilis, 191. Aurelianus, emperor, restores the walls of Rome, 273. He dies, 263. Aurelianus, prefect of the praetorium, 300. Autonomi (holy), district in Constantinople, 373. Autrigoni, 33. Avars, 395, 394, 395, 396. Axiamaranan the Persian, 399. Axius, river, 34. Azael, king of Syria, 98, 93, 101, 162. Azarias, prophet, 45. Azarias, high priest, 96, 120. Day of Unleavened Bread, 211, 227.
B Babyle (St.), martyrdom, 270, 271. Babylonia, 33. Bacchylides, 162. Bactra, 28. Baladad, 91. Balai, temple in Heliopolis, 303. Balbinus, emperor, 269. Public bath in Alexandria, 266. Bath of Zeuxippus at Constantinople, 356. Baths of Alexander, 337. Balthazar, king of the Chaldeans, 138, 139, 140. Bauza, king of Israel, 94. White garments of the baptized, 276. Barach, 78, 91. Barasmanas the Persian, 400. Romans used to shave their beards, 375. Barbarism, 23, 24. Barbyzius, king of Byzantium, 261, 263. Barnabas (St.), 221, 232. Barsabas, 23. Baruch, prophet, 120, 121, 150. Basantes, 27. Basilica, at Constantinople, 335. Basilica of the Gunarii, 337. Dream of St. Basil concerning the death of Emperor Julian, 297. Basiliscus, emperor, 324. His death, 326. Bastarini, 27. Bastarni, 27. Bebrani, 32. Belisarius, 335, 337, 339. War of Hadrianopolis and Chalcedon under Constantine the Great, 282. Belus, 36, 37, 42. Benjamin, 60. Bernice, or Berenice, 302. Berrani, 31. Bertis, river, 31. Bessi, 32. Bethoron, 91. Library of King Ptolemy, 173. Libraries of Rome burned, 263. Place of the Biothanati in Constantinople, 310. Wall of Blachernae, 396, 397. Blemmyes, 271. Blidas, 315. Bonosus, 387. Bonus, master [of the soldiers] under Heraclius, 397. Borades, 27, 32. Boraidium, [in] Constantinople, 320, 323. Borysthenes, 34, 35. Bos, location so called in Constantinople, 382. Bosporiani, 32. Bostra, 35. Years of the Bostreni, 253. Brachionum, a type of fortification, 397. Circus prize (Bravium), 302. Britons, whence arisen, 26, 27. Britanni, 194. Institution of the Brumalia, 114. Brutides, women, 113. Brutus kills Caesar, 189. Bubulcus, master of the soldiers, 171. Bucolia, 252. Circensian games performed with pack-mules, 113. Buzi, prophet, 121. Byza, city, 250, 265. Origins of Byzantium, 264. Whence [the name] was said, 278. Byzantium, 33. Restored by Constantine the Great and called Constantinople, 284. Byzas, king of Thrace, 265.
C Caad, 61. Cabades, king of the Persians, 332. Cabata Siroes, king of the Persians, 407. Cadius, 12. Caesar, whence so called, 186. Caesarea, 35, 193. Caesarea of Palestine, 270. Caesarea, city, 327. Caesarii district in Constantinople, 382. Caesar’s purple garments, 326. Caesarius, consul, 319. Cainan, 20. Caistrus, river, 31. Calabrya, 337. Caligula, emperor, 250. Calleci, 33. Callinice, fortune of the city, 43. Callinicus, city, 173. Callistus, called Venus, 47. Cambyses, king, 144. Camilia, 30. Camillus, consul, 171. Campani, Italians, 168. Campus Martius, 110. 1760 Campus near the city of Constantinople, 319, 381. Candidati (seniores), 269. Canethotes the Egyptian, 64. Canzaca, city, 399, 400, 401. Capitolinus Viocurus, 297. Capitolium, 109. Incense, 263. Capitolium of Constantinople, 306. Cappadocia, 371. Years of the captivity of the Jews, 143, 144. Cara, banquets, 113. Cares, 33. Cari, 28. Caria, 50, 173. Carianthedon, 193. Cariatus, island, 30. Carius, emperor, 274. Carnuntum, city, 279. Carosa, daughter of Emperor Valens, 301. Carosiana, baths, 301, 303. Carrhae, city, 267. Carruca of the city prefect, 318. Prefect of the praetorium, 328. Carthage, 35. Genseric enters Carthage, 315. Carus, emperor, 274. He dies, 279. Caspii, 52. Cassandria, 53. Castellum Rotundum in Constantinople, 382. Chastity introduced among the Persians, 45, 46. Cathari, heretics, 271. Caucasus, 34, 37. Cayphas, high priest, 208. Cea, 33. Cecropius, bishop of Nicomedia, destroyed by an earthquake, 293. Cedrusii, 31. Cellei, 26, 32. Celtiberi, 27. Celtiones, 52. Cendocolpitae, 32. Celtis, 27. Cephas, one of Christ’s disciples, 213. Cepheus, 39, 40. Cepheus, 41. Cephissus, river, 34. Cercina, island, 30, 33. Cerdo, heretic, 256, 273. Lit candles, a sign of honor, 327. Cericus, master of the soldiers, 355. Cerinthus, heretic, 252. Ceroe, genius of Byzantium, 265. Cetai, who are also Romans, 32, 33. Chaganus of the Avars, 379, 389, 392. Chalca, city, 399. Chalce, in Constantinople, 329. Chalce [of the] Hippodrome, 383. Chalcedon, 55. Synod of Chalcedon, 319. Kings of the Chaldeans, 23. Chaldaei, 30, 31. Chalices, 27. Chananaei, 32. Chela, 393, 396. Chelone, locality in Constantinople, 250. Chenebron, 63, 64. Chenex, 107. Chersonesus, 33. Cherubim of the Jerusalem temple translated to Antioch, 247. Chetura, 64. Chilon, one of the seven wise men, 143. Chiron, 37. White chlamys of the emperors, 334. Chlamydes of the senators, 117. Chore, 86. Chosroes of the Persians against the Romans
377. His destruction, 399. Genealogy of Christ, 245. Nativity, 189, 191, 199, 202, 209, 226. Circumcision, 203. Epiphany, 209. Baptism, 210, 224, 255. Preaching, 223, 224. Passover, 210, 216, 225. Passion, 222, 224. Assumption, 223. Disciples, 208, 214. Christians obtain victory from God under M. Antoninus, 261. Whence Christians are so called, 361. Persecution of the Christians. See Persecution. Chrysopolis, 586. Chus the Egyptian, 36. Chusarsathem, king of Egypt, 78. Chuta, 108. Chutei, ibid. Constantina, daughter of Emperor Tiberius and wife of Maurice, 376. Sent to a monastery, 580. Slain, 378. Constantinople founded by Constantine the Great, 281, 285. Called Flourishing, ibid. Called New Rome, ibid. Its dedication and birthday, ibid. Constantine the Great, son of Helena, 278. Reigns, 278. Restores Byzantium, 282. Celebrates the festivals, 282. Restores Drepanum, 282. Crosses the Danube, 284. Founds Constantinople, ibid. His radiant statue, ibid. Another golden one, 285. Prepares for war, is baptized, dies, 286. Constantine, son of Constantine the Great, 287. Constantine (the New), called Tiberius the Thracian, emperor, 376. Constantine Lardis, 379. Constantine Chlorus becomes Caesar, 275. Thereafter emperor, 277. Dies, 278. Constantiolus, 336, 339. Constantius, brother of Constantine the Great, 277. Constantius, son of Constantine the Great, 281, 286, 287. To give the consulship, 277. Beginning of the Roman consuls, 161. Cordilia, 31. Cornelia, a vestal, buried alive for lewdness, 249. Cornelius baptized, 229. Cornelius, Pope of Rome, 272. Legion of the Cornuti, 297. Corura, an island, 28. Corzeni, 27. Cicero recalled from exile, 185. His death, 190. Cilicia the Second, 371. Cilix, 42. Ash like rain, 324. Circensian games, 285. Circensian factions, 319. See Faction. Gates of the Circus of Constantinople burned, 308. Ascent, 308. Burning, 329. Circumcision of Abraham, 53. Roman Circus, 110. Circus of Constantinople, 284. See Hippodrome. Cistern built by Phocas, 382. Cistern of Pulcheria in Constantinople, 383. Cithaeron, 34. Claudius, emperor, 231, 273. Golden and purple nails of chlamydes, 117. Clazomenae, 33. Clement, one of Christ’s disciples, 214. Bishop of Rome, 250. Dies, 232. Cleopas, one of Christ’s disciples, 213. Cleopatra, daughter of Emperor Maurice, 378, 380. Cleopatra, queen of Egypt, 186, 191. Climates of the globe, 35. Cnethi, 33. Cnidus, 30. Cossae, 31. Cotyaeum, a city, 275. Death of Crassus, 186. Craterus the patrician, 336, 340. Crescent, one of Christ’s disciples, 214. Martyr, 252. Cretes, 29. Crispus becomes Caesar, 281. Put to death, 282. Crocodile, 146. Croesus, king, 143. Cochlea, 28. Cochlea of the Palace of Constantinople, 326. Justinian Code, 333, revised 343. Codra, a type of building, 254. Round firmament, 237. Lord’s Supper, when held, 225. Colchis, 27. Coli, 27. Colonea, a city, 371. Colossus of Rhodes, 173, 253, 263. Of Nero, 248. Porphyry Column in Constantinople, 281, 309, 310. Column and statue of Constantine the Great, 338. Column built by Phocas, 382, 384. Pillars of Hercules, 29. Years of the Commagenians, 248. Comana, 33. Comet under Heraclius, 391. Other comets, 315, 323, 331. Commagenae, 31. Commentiolus, 379. Commerciarius of the vestments, 394. Commodus, emperor, 257, 259, 261. Council of Constantinople under Mennas, 344. Ephesine, 314, second Ephesine, 317. Chalcedonian, 519. Congiarium, 117. Connii, 27. Church of St. Conon in Constantinople, 379, 594. Constans, son of Constantine the Great, 278. Caesar, 281, 282, 286, 287. Constantia, daughter of Constantine the Great, 291. Body of Constantia, daughter of Constantine the Great, brought to Constantinople, 301. Constantianae, in Constantinople, 339. SS. Cosmas and Damian, church in Constantinople, 389, 397. Institution of the feast of the Holy Cross, 286. Cross seen in the heavens by Constantine the Great, 280. Again under Constantius at Jerusalem, 291. Lord’s Cross captured by the Persians, 383. Ctesias, 168. Curos, 33. Various ecclesiastical cycles, 9, 10, 11, 288. Cycle of 532 years, 374, 375. Cyla, 35. Cyniras, 37. Cyphera, an island, 28. Martyrdom of St. Cyprian, 272. Cypris, mother of Herod, 189, 191. Cyrene, 32, 35. Cyrestica, 297. Cyril the deacon of Heliopolis, 295. Cyrtiani, 27. Cyrus, king of the Persians, 142, 143. Cyrus, praetorian prefect, dismissed, 318. Becomes bishop of Smyrna and preaches there. He invented the evening and nocturnal lamps, 318. Cyrus, Patriarch of Constantinople, 379. Dies, 381. Hadrian founds a temple in Cyzicus, 234. When Cyzicus was founded, 80. Dadan, 64. Dadastana, a city, 400. One called "of the demoniacs," 383. Bath of Dagistheus, 335. Dalmatius, brother of Constantine the Great, 277, 278, 286. Censor, ibid. Damascus, 33. Danae, 58. Danaus, son of Belus, 42. Daniel the prophet, 122, 124, 125, 126, 127, 139, 140, 141, 142, 158, 160. Visions of Daniel, 155. Daphne, 262. Bridge of the Danube, 284. Darius, son of Ahasuerus, king of the Medes, 141, 142. Darius, son of Hystaspes, king of the Persians, 141. Darius Arsaces, king of the Persians, 170. Darius, king of the Medes, 140, 141. Where he was slain, 329. Darius Nothus, king of the Persians, 165. Dastagargosa, a Persian city, 399. David, king of the Jews, 81. His sepulcher, 155. Dauni, 27. Deborah, 79. Decimum, in Constantinople, 326. Decius, emperor, 276. Persecutes the Christians, 270. Why he is depicted among lions and asps, 271. Makes war upon the Franks, ibid. Is slain, ibid. Dedications of churches, 281. Dedication of the church of the Holy Cross, 286. Of the Great Church in Constantinople, 309. St. Ignatius called God-bearer, 221, 223. Delmatia, 27, 29, 32, 35. Demas, one of Christ’s disciples, 214. Demetrius Sidetes, king of Syria, 181. Democritus the philosopher, 116. His death, 169. Demosthenes, 169. Dennageni, 27. Derris, 27. Dexiphanes of Cnidus, the architect of the Pharos of Alexandria, 192. Diabateria, 227. Diadromi, 379. Diapsalma, 86. Didius Julianus, emperor, 261. Day for year, among the Egyptians, 45. Sunday as a day of rest, 322. Ancestral gods, 108. Flood, 21, 22. Dinzirichus, son of Attala, slain, 325. Diocletian, emperor, proceeds as consul, 274. His years, ibid. Makes Maximian his partner in empire, 275. Stays in Nicomedia, ibid. Persecutes the Christians. See Persecution. Rules at Rome, 278. Abdicates the empire, ibid. Diogenes the Cynic, 168. Diogenes the heretic, 296. Diogenianus, master of the soldiers, 331. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, 271. Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, is condemned, 319. Catalog of Christ’s disciples, 212, 213, 214, 221. Dodecapylon, 251. Martyrdom of St. Dometius, 297. Sunday, the first day of the week, 17. Sunday established as a day of rest, 322. Domitian, emperor, forbids men from being eunuchs, 249. Orders that they not be worshiped in the cities, 250. Founds a temple without wood, 249. Is slain, 251. Domnica, wife of Emperor Valens, 301. Domnizolus, 380. Domnus, bishop of Antioch, condemned in the Ephesine synod, 517. Royal house, 337. Placidia, in Constantinople, 303, 383. Doras, a city; whence named, 329. Dorostolum, a city, 297. Dorotheus the martyr, 277. Dracon, a river, 412. Drepanum called Helenopolis, 283. Drusus, master of the soldiers, 171. Heresy of the Ebionites, 252.
A Church of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem dedicated, 236. The Great Church burned, 307. Dedicated, 309. Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople, 287. Churches rebuilt under Constantine the Great, 281. Dedication of the Constantinian Great Church in Constantinople, 193, 291. Dedication festival of the Church of the Holy Apostles, 302. Dedication of the Great Church under Justinian, 375. Eclipse of the sun, 146, 192, 190, 221, 510. Ectae, 30. Edessa, 35. Edessa captured by the Persians, 381. Edicts against Christians proposed, 277. Edict of Justinian concerning the faith, 341. Another edict, 345 et seqq. Edicts promulgated in the churches, 343. Edon, 57. Eglom, 78. Elamites, 30. Eleazar, high priest, 76, 77, 171, 188, 216. Four elements, honored in Rome, 110. A female elephant gives birth, 248. Elephants made drunk with wine and incense, 176. Combat of elephants in the circus games, 183. Eliacim, high priest, 115. Elias the Tishbite, 97, 99, 161. Death of Elias, 161. Elias, master of the soldiers, 400. Eliazibus, high priest, 162, 188. B The Gospel of Saint John kept at Ephesus, 5. Matthew writes his Gospel in Jerusalem, 233. Tatian writes the Concordance of the Gospels, 261. Euboea, 33. Eubulus, one of Christ’s disciples, 214. Evenus, a river, 34. Eudocia, daughter of Valentinian the Younger, emperor, 315, 320. Eudocia, wife of Heraclius, emperor, 384. Crowned, 581. Eudocia, daughter of Theodosius the Younger, emperor, 515. Eudocia, wife of Theodosius the Younger, emperor, 312. Called Augusta, ibid. Her divorce, 316. She comes to Antioch and speaks in the senate there, 316. Thence she comes to Jerusalem, dies there, and is buried, ibid. See Athenais. Eudoxia, wife of Arcadius, 306. Her death, 307. Eudoxia, most noble Augusta, 307. Eudoxius, bishop of Constantinople, 294, 296. Eudoxus, astrologer, 167. Eudoxus, philosopher, 169. Death of the tyrant Eugenius, 305. Eugenius eats a snake without harm, 289. Evitach Marodach, king of the Chaldeans, 138. Eulatius Barbatus, 340. Eunice, a disciple of Christ, 224. Men forbidden to be made eunuchs by the emperor Domitian, 259. Sacred house of Saint Euphemia, 321. Euphrates, 34. Euripides, 162. His death, 166. Elisha the prophet, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 105, 161. Eliezer, false prophet, 98. Elizabeth, mother of Saint John the Baptist, 196, 198. Elpidius, illustrious, 380. Emesa, a city, 293. The head of Saint John the Baptist found in Emesa, 320. Emmaus, called Nicopolis, 267. Empedocles, 163. Dedication festival of the Great Church in Constantinople under Justinian, 375. Heresy of the Encratites, 260. Enoch, 21. His prophecy, ibid. Enos, 20. Enyalius, 42. Inventor of equestrian contests, 111. Epaenetus, one of Christ’s disciples, 213. Epaphras, one of Christ’s disciples, 214. Epaphroditus, one of Christ’s disciples, 214. Ephraemius, candidatus, 338, 339, 340. Epidamnus, 35. Epiphany of Christ, 209. Epiphania, daughter of the emperor Heraclius, is born, 384, 390. Epiphania, city of Syria, 295. Epirus Nova, 328. Canonical epistles, when written, 233. Eratosthenes, 175. Erechthonius, 111. Eridanus, a river, 34. Erymanthus, 34. Ermitzis, leader of the Avars, 396. Errei, 27. Erythrae, 33. Erythria, 108, 189. Ezra, high priest, 162. Ezra, grammarian, 163. The book of Ezra, 162. Essedon, judge, 81. Etham, 86. Etimen, 91. Evaei, 32. Justinian carries the Gospel into the circus, 338. C Factiones in the circus, and their colors, 111; dissensions, 112. Consular Fasti, 165, 381. Faunus, king of Italy, 38, 44. Inventor of iron, ibid. Faustulus, 114. Ferentius, prefect of the city, 321. Invention of iron, 44, 45. Feast of the Apparition of the Holy Cross, 286. Flaccilla, wife of Theodosius the Great, 305. The Flaccillian palace, 303, 338. Flavianus, bishop of Rome, martyr, 270. Flavius, bishop of Antioch, 270, 271. Flavianus, bishop of Constantinople, deposed, 317. Florianus, emperor, 273. Phocas is acclaimed emperor, 378. He killed Maurice, his wife, and children, and is himself killed in turn, 583. His image burned, ibid. Follis, a type of coin, 521. Fontes, the name given to the house of the Mother of God near the city of Constantinople, 394. Fortuna Callinice, 42; Persica, 39; Ceroe, 265. Statue of the Fortune of the city of Constantinople, 281, 283. D Fortunatus, one of Christ’s disciples, 214. Forum Boarium in Rome, 109. Forum of Theodosius in Constantinople, 303, 308, 310; the Arcadiacum, 313; of Constantine, 284, 329, 358, 541, 580. Strait at Constantinople, 324, 391. Gad the prophet, 81. Gaddi, 107. Gadira (Gades), 29. Gaina the Goth, his fall, 307. Gaius (or Caius), one of Christ's disciples, 214. Galaad, 107. Galata, son of the emperor Valens, 301. Galate, 50. Galatae, 32. Galatia, 33. Galba, emperor, 245, 246. Galerius Maximinus, 277, 278, 279, 280. Dies, 281. Galilee, 107. Galla Placidia, daughter of Theodosius the Great, 304. Galla, wife of Theodosius the Great, 504. Gauls, whence they originated, 27. The Gauls capture Rome, 167. Gallus, emperor, 271. Gallus, brother of the emperor Julian, named Caesar by Constantius, 278, 292. Put to death, 293. Garamantes, 27, 32. Mount Garizim, 527. Garpheni, 30, 31. Gaulus, an island, 30. Gaza, a city, 251, 293. Gazed, 91. Gideon, 80. Martyrdom of (Saint) Gelasinus, 275, 276. Gentilism, 49. Genseric, king of the Vandals, 515. Enters Rome, 520. Geon, a river, 29, 30. Saint George, 274. Gepidae, 270. Gerba, an island, 33. Gergesenes, 32. Nations of the Germans, 33. Germanus, patrician, 380. Gesius, brother of Eudoxia Augusta, 311, 313. Getuli, 26. Giants, 22, 26. Golgotha, 161. Gordianus the Elder, emperor, 269. The head of the Gorgon, 59. Gortyna, by whom founded, 45. Gothologomor, 50. Gotholia, king of Judah, 99. Gothoniel, 78. Goths fall under the emperor Arcadius, 307. Greeks, 32. Graecismus, a type of heresy, 25, 24, 48, 49. Graecosarmatae, 35. Unusual hail, 301, 507. Gratian, emperor, 301, 303. Is born, 303. Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, 370. Gregory, patriarch of Antioch, 577. Basilica of the Gunarii, 357. Gurdanaspa the Persian, 398, 400. Gymnosophists, 30. Hadrianopolis, 53. Hadrian, emperor, 233. He captures Jerusalem and disperses the Jews, 253; founds Antinoopolis, 254; erects various buildings in Nicaea, Nicomedia, and Cyzicus, 254. Named Father of the Fatherland, 258. Haelimaei, 51. Mothers of heresies, 23. Various heresies concerning Christ, 204.
A Heretics, even after death, excommunicated, 367, 568, 569, 570. Halys river, 34. Hamaxobii, 33. Hannibalianus, brother of Constantine the Great, 277. Spear (Hasta), a comet, 525. Weeks (Hebdomades) of Daniel, 161, 165, 188, 189, 192. Hebdomon at Constantinople, 304, 503, 507, 508, 519, 537, 538, 578, 582. Servitude of the Hebrews, 62. Hebrus river, 31. Hedui, whence they originated, 33. Writings of Hegesippus, 26, 262. Heicias, priest, 120. Helena, mother of Constantine the Great, 278. Helena, wife of the Emperor Julian, 293. Helenopolis, 283. Helia, city, 169. Helias, 21. Heli, judge of the Hebrews, 81. Heli, high priest of the Jews, 83. Helicon, 34. Heliogabalus. See Antoninus. Heliopolis, 35, 63. Heliopolis Libanensis, 275. Age of the historian Hellanicus, 146. Hellas, 33. Hellenes, or Greeks, whence named, 48. Hellespont province, 526. Heraclea, 33. Heraclea, metropolis of Europe, 285. Heraclitus the philosopher, father of the Augusta Eudocia, 510. Heraclius, declared emperor, 582. His consulship, 583. Departure into Persia, 598. Heraclius Novus Constantinus is born, 584. Declared emperor, ibid. and 590. Hercules, son of Jupiter, 38. Hercules Tyrius, 45. Pillars of Hercules, 29. Arms of Hercules brought to Rome, 109. Hermas, one of the disciples of Christ, 213. Hermei, 31. Hermes, one of the disciples of Christ, 213. Hermii, 35. Hermoeli, 33. Hermogenes the master, 536. Hermopolis, founded by Moses, 63, 64. Hermus river, 34. Herod the foreigner founds Sebaste, 181. Initiates various works, 193. Builds the Temple of Jerusalem, 193. Kills the wives of his sister Salome, 202. Slaughters the children, 205. Dies, 206, 217. Herod, brother of Archelaus, tetrarch, 230. Herodias, 217. Age of the historian Herodotus, 162, 163. Hexabippium, in Constantinople, 529. Hierapolis, 35. Hierius, urban prefect and consul, 314. Hippias the tyrant, 145. Hippici, 27. Hippodrome, 110, 111. Hyrcani, 31. Hyrcanus, surname of Jonathan, high priest of the Jews, 181, 185, 191. Hispanics, whence they originated, 32, 33. Hispania Magna, 27. Hispanogallia, 27. History of Judith, 144. Hoessi, port, 34. Age of Homer, 84. Honoratus, prefect of the city of Rome, proceeds to Constantinople, 293. Honoria, daughter of the Emperor Valentinian, 320. Huneric, son of Genseric, 32. Honorius, emperor, 306. Is born, 504. Torrea, city of Doras, 350. Constantinian Granaries (Horrea), 314. Hoshea, king of the Jews, 107, 108. Huns devastate Illyricum, 515. Hypatius, patrician, declared emperor, 538. His death, 539. Hypaepa, 35. Hyperbasia, 227. B Ibas condemned at the Synod of Ephesus, 317. Ichthyophagi, 28. Iconium, city, whence so named, 33, 39. Idithun, 86. Idolatry, when it began, 48. Idumeans, whence so named, 32, 37. Ignatius (St.), martyr, 232. Fire worshipped by the Persians, 40. Ilium, by whom founded, 79. Illus, the Isaurian, rebel, 337. Emperor of Luppa, 340. Inachus, 41. Fire in Constantinople under Theodosius the Younger, 314. Under Leo, 322, 324. Indii, first and second, 31, 32. Beginning of the indictions, 187. Constantinian indiction, 280, 374. Indus, which is also the river Phison, 51, 81. Inscription on the statue of Constantine the Great at Rome, 280, 281. Interpreters (LXX), 173, 188. Iphiti, Olympiads, 104. Irenaeus Pentadias, master of the soldiers, 335, 336. C Church of St. Irene at Constantinople, 537. Irenaeus (St.), bishop of Lugdunum (Lyons), 262. Iris, a sign of the cross surrounding the sky, 292. Iron, bishop of Thebes in Egypt, 296. Isaac, 53, 54, 55, 57. Isaac, patriarch of Jerusalem, 382. Issachar, 60. Isaiah, 105, 109, 114, 116. His death, 117, 154. Elogium, 154. Isaurian war, 187. Ishmael, 53. Ismenus river, 34. Isocasius, quaestor, 322. Isocrates the rhetorician, 169. Israel, 57. Israelites, 57. Ister (Danube) river, 31. Isus, island, 293. Itabeni, 28. Ithobalus, king of the Tyrians, 97. Ituraea, 208. Jabis, 78. Jacob, 58, 59. The relics of Joseph, son of Jacob, transferred to Constantinople, 509. James (St.), son of Zebedee, apostle, 212. James (St.), bishop of Jerusalem, 203, 226, 246, 248. Jael, 79. Jair, judge, 81. Jannaeus Alexander, high priest, 184, 188. Jason, 41. Jason, one of the disciples of Christ, 213. Jebus, city, 84. Jebusites, 29. Jeconiah, king, 121, 122, 123, 127, 129, 130, 156. Jehu the prophet, 95, 96, 99. Jehu, king of Israel, 98. Fasts, when to be performed, 17. Middle week of the fasts, 320. Fast of the Manichaeans, 17. Jephthah, judge, 81. Jered, 21. Jeremiah the prophet, 119, 120, 121, 123, 124, 128, 136. Jeroboam, 92, 203. Jerusalem, when founded, 84. Besieged, 109. Captured by Titus, 246, 247. By Hadrian, 253. Various buildings constructed in the city, 254. Called Aelia, 254. Jerusalem captured by the Persians, 385. Jesdem, city, 399. Jesus, son of Josedech, 142. Jesus, high priest, 178, 188. Jesus, one of the disciples of Christ, 213. Jezebel, 97, 98. Jo. Lucifera, 41. Jehoahaz, king, 103, 104, 121. Jehoiakim, high priest, 161, 188. Jehoiakim, king, 121. Joash, king of Israel, 100, 102, 103, 104, 161. Joannan, high priest, 96. Joannes Crucis, 380. John (St.) the Evangelist writes his Gospel at Ephesus, 246. Where it is kept, 5. His exile, 246. Apocalypse, 250. Return to Ephesus, 251. Death, 252. John (St.) Chrysostom sent into exile, 307, 424. John the Cappadocian, 556. John, master of the records (scriniorum), 380. John Sismus, 391. Slaughter by the Vandals, 315. John (St.) the Baptist's birth, 201. Elogium, 201, 207. Death, 217. Relics of St. John the Baptist burned, 295. The head of St. John the Baptist brought to Constantinople under Theodosius the Great, 305. Found at Emesa under Theodosius junior, 320. Sacred church of St. John the Baptist in the Hebdomon, 378. Jochebed, 63. Jodae, high priest, 100, 101, 165, 188. Joiada, or Joatham, king, 105, 121. Jonadab, 97, 99. Jonan, from whom the Ionians are named, 49. Jonah, 102, 105, 149. Jonathan Maccabaeus, high priest, 181, 182, 188. Jopolis, 41, 42. Joram, king, son of Jehoshaphat, 90, 97. Joram, king of Samaria, 96. Jordan, 34. Jordan turned back at the baptism of Christ, 225. Josadech, wife of Jodae the high priest, 99. Jehoshaphat, king, 96. Joses, son of St. Joseph, 203. Joseph, son of Jacob, 61, 62. His sepulcher, 158. Josephus the historian predicts the death of Nero, 240. Josiah, king, 63, 118, 119, 121. Joshua, 77. Jethro, 64. Jovian, emperor, 299. Dies, 300. Judah, 60. Jews, whence so named, 92. Their captivity, 136, 143, 144. Jews as allies of the Roman people, 179. Subjugated by Pompey, 185. Julius Caesar makes war upon them, 187. Their heresy concerning the resurrection of the dead, 246. The Jews kill Cyrenius the governor, ibid. Their leaders fail, 247. Domitian persecutes the Jews of the line of David, 250. Judaism, 23, 49, 65. Judas Maccabaeus, 179, 180, 181, 183. Judas, son of Joseph, 203. History of Judith, 144. Julia, daughter of Augustus, is relegated, 191. Juliana, noblewoman, wife of Areobindus, 321, 330. Julian, called Caesar, 295. He becomes emperor and destroys the Christian religion,
298. Death of the emperor Julian, 298. Juliopolis, 35. A Julius Caesar makes war on the Greeks, Imperator, 186. He takes Rome, ibid. Tyrant. Orator, 187. He reforms the year. He wages war against the Jews and Scipio. He is put to death, 189. Julius Africanus, historian, 267. Juno Jugalis, 36. Jupiter, who is also Picus, begets many children, 44. Justina, stepmother of the emperor Gratian, 501. Justinianopolis, called the suburb of Sycae, 335. Apology of St. Justin B for the Christians, 258. Justinian made emperor, 334. He settles the seditions of the city, ibid. He restores Sycae, 335. He subdues the rioting Samaritans, ibid. He settles a sedition, 336. His edicts concerning the faith. He dedicates the Great Church, 375. He dies, ibid. His physical appearance, ibid. Justinian, son of the emperor Maurice, 378. Justin the Younger, emperor, 373. He falls ill and declares Tiberius Caesar, 376. He dies, ibid. Justin Thrax, emperor, 531. He dies, 334. C Justin, son of the emperor Maurice, 378. Justus, bishop of Jerusalem, 253. Justusa, leader of the Samaritans, his fall, 327. Juvenalia, Roman senatrix, 327.
L Labdon, judge of the Hebrews, 82. Labuarsacius, king of the Persians, 299. Laceria, 37. Lacones, 33. Lamech, 21. Lamet, 38. Imperial lamps, 299. Lampadusa, island, 30. Lampon, called Saturn, 46. Lampsacus, 35. The sacred lance brought to Constantinople, 385. The years of the Laodiceans, 187. Stones thrown in the circus, 329. Larissa, 35. Latins, from whom they originated, 27. The leader of brigands converted to Christ by St. John the Evangelist, 251. Latrunculator, a dignity, 327. Laurelled images, 323. Palace of Lausus, 380. Laws given to the Jews by Moses, 64. Law by which children inherit from fathers who die intestate, 262. Legestani, 27. Legion of the Cornuti, 297. Lemnus, 3. Leo the Great, called emperor, 320. He redeems Eudoxia and her daughters, ibid. He dies, 324. Leo Junior, emperor, 521. Leo Syrus, 383. The emperor Decius brings lions and lionesses from the East, 271. Leontius, comes of the Pisces, 591. Leontius, curator of the palace at Antioch, 380, 383. Leontius, bishop of Antioch, 289. Leontius, prefect of the city, 386, 392. Lepidus, triumvir, 189, 190. Leptis, 29. Lesbus, 28. Levi, 59, 62. Libanus, 31. Translated from three books, 173. Libya, whence named, 111. Libya in Inachus, 41, 42. Licinius, emperor, 278, 279, 282. Ligures, 29. Limne, a fortress, 325. Linus, one of the disciples of Christ, 213. Litanies on account of earthquakes, 317, 318, 321. Moses gives letters to the Jews, from whom the Phoenicians and Greeks received them, 64. Locris, 27. The middle place between heaven and hell, 239. Lois, one of the disciples of Christ, 221. The Long Wall, 389, 292. Lot, 50, 61. St. Luke the Evangelist, 221. Relics of SS. Luke and Andrew brought to Constantinople, 219. Martyrdom of Lucian the presbyter, 277, 279, 283. Lucian, when he lived, 240. Lucius, one of the disciples of Christ, 214. Lucius Aurelius Commodus, emperor, 257, 259. Lamentation of the women among the Hebrews for the daughter of Jephthah, 81. Games instituted at Antioch, 192. Gladiatorial games abolished, 251. Lugdunum, 33, 35. D Lugdunum, a city of Gaul, 217. Lugdunum, 292. Evening and night lights discovered by Cyrus the Praetorian Prefect, 518. Statue of the moon created at Antioch by Vespasian, 247. Rustic women called wolves, 114. Lusitani, 27, 33. Lychnites, 27. Lychnuchi in pagan temples, 251. Lycia, 30. Lycii, 29. The river Lycus flowing into Constantinople, 250, 319. Lydi, 29. Lydia, 30. Lygdonia, 30. Lystra, 35. Lysanias the Tetrarch, 206, 208.
M Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, 286. Books of the Maccabees, when they were written, 175. What it means, 180. Church of the Holy Maccabees at Constantinople, 592. Macedonians, 34, 35. Macedonia, 27. Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople, condemned, 304. Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, deposed, 294. Maci, 29. Macores, 32. Macuaci, 26, 32. Madiam Minor, 34. Madianites, 30, 31. Madianites, 34. Maeander, 34. Maeotae, Mautis, 27. Magdo, 91. Maxi, 52. Magister militum praesentalis, 326. Magnaura at Constantinople, 538. Magnentius, emperor, 278, 280, 289, 291, 292. Malachi the prophet, 130, 152. Malaleel, 20. Sacred church of St. Mamas, 324. Manahem, king, 106, 107. Manasseh, king, 116, 118. Manasseh, high priest, 174. Manes, the heretic, 251. The Manichaeans fast on the Lord's Day, 17. The Manichaeans reject meat, 237. Mapparius, 383. Marathon, 33. Marcian becomes emperor, 319. He favors the side of the Veneti, 520. His death, ibid. Marcianopolis recaptured, 317. Marcio Ponticus, heretic, 256, 257, 260, 263. Marcionite heretics, 237, 256. Marcomanni, 33. St. Mark, 224. Bishop of Alexandria, 250, 252. Marcus Antoninus Verus, emperor, 257. His letter in defense of the Christians, 259. Marcus Caesar, sons of the emperor Basiliscus, 325, 526. The age of Mordecai, 162. Adriatic Sea, 27. Erythraean, 30. Brazen sea, 115. Miriam the prophetess, 63. Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 192. Mariamme, a place near Heliopolis, 276. Marina, wife of Valentinian the Great, 302, 521. Marina, daughter of the emperor Arcadius, 306, she builds a house, ibid. She is born, 307. She dies, 317. Marodach, 116. Mariandeni, 27, 29. Marmarides, 28. Marmaris, 29. Mars, 37, 38. Martina, wife of Heraclius, 390. Temple of Mars at Rome, 110. Many martyrs under Domitian, 250. Methuselah, 21. Mattaniah, king, 129, 130, 133. St. Matthew the Apostle, 213, 253. Moors, from whom they originated, 26, 33. Maurianus, count, 328. Maurice, emperor, is crowned, 376. He is captured by Phocas and put to death, 379. Mauritania, 35. Maxentius, emperor, 278, 279. Maximianus Jovius, Caesar, 275. Maximinus, Caesar, 278, 279. Maximianus Herculius, emperor, 273, 279, 281. Maximinus, emperor, 268. Maximus, emperor, 267, 320. Mazones, 30. Mazices, 27, 32. Medi, 27, 32, 55. Media, whence named, 40. Medusa, 39. Megista, island, 50. Melantias, city, 392. Melchisedech, 49, 50, 51. Meletius, bishop of Antioch, 296. Melita, island, 30. Melitene, 35. Melito, bishop of Sardis, 258, 259. Memnon, the vocal stone, 144. Memphis, 35. Martyrdom of St. Menas, 275. The death of Menander, 172. Menas, prefect of the guard, 521. Menelaus, high priest, 179. Menephot, or the crocodile, 156. Meninx, island, 30, 33. Lunar months of the Hebrews, 16. An invention of the Egyptians, 16. The months of September and October change their names under Domitian, 249. Months of the Asians, 270. Months of the Cappadocians, 371. Month of New Fruits, 1, 2, 16. First month of the Hebrews, 16. Mercury, son of Picus, 41. Called Phanus, 45. Hermes Trismegistus, 47. St. Mercurius kills the emperor Julian, 299. Merdius, king, 144. Meroe, 35. Meronium, city, 386. Men called Meropes, 49. Meros, 41. Merrhi, 60, 61. Messalia, 27. Messana, 35. Mestrem, king of Egypt, 45.
Metrophanes, bishop of Constantinople, 280. Micha the prophet, 96, 104, 105, 109, 115, 116, 147. Midaba, 35. Minos, 43. Mass, or dismissal, 358. Mitylene, 33, 35. Mezaca, 35. Moguntiacum, city of Gaul, 268. Monaxius, prefect of the city, 308. Monoportum, in Constantinople, 339. Montanus, the heretic, 263. Mopsucren, 294. Mortality in Constantinople under Justinian, 335. Dead man has no friend, 328. Moses, bishop of Antaradus, 309. Mossinæti, 27. Mosulani, 33. Moses, 63, 64, 65, etc. His eulogy, 76, 77. His sepulcher, 157. Called a cosmographer, 238. Moses, called Psomtomphanchos by the Egyptians, 76. Mulvius bridge, at Rome, 280. World, whether from eternity, 237. Mundus, the Patrician, 339. Mursa, city, 292. Walls of Constantinople, 265. Maritime, 280. Anastasian Wall, 330. Theodosian Wall, in Constantinople, 397. Museum of Antioch, 316. Musonius, the philosopher, 240. Mustus Seleucus, 292. Muza, 35. Mygdonia, province, 300. Myra, city, 183. Mysians, 29, 30. Mysia the lower, 33.
N Nabothæ, 32. Nabuchodonosor, king, 122, 125, 126, 132, 134, 139, 160. Nabuzardan, 138. Nachor, 48, 49. Nacolia, 301. Nadab, king of Israel, 91. Nahum, the prophet, 103, 104, 105, 113, 119, 130. Naissus, city, 291. Narbonenses, 33. Narcissus, one of the disciples of Christ, 213. Narses, 339. Nasamones, 33. Nassamones, 29. Nathan, 83, 91. Nausthi, 52. Naxus, 33. Neapolis, 35. Nebdeni, 33. Nechao, Nechepso, 121. Nectenabus, king of Egypt, 170. Nehemiah restores Jerusalem, 163. Nemesis, ibid. Nimrod, 56. Neocæsarea, 35. Neorium, in Constantinople, 314. Nepotianus, emperor, 289. Neptune, 48, 49. Nerea, 33. Nereus, one of the disciples of Christ, 214. Nero, emperor, 233. His death, ibid. Nerva, emperor, 251. Nestorius condemned in the Ephesian synod, 314. Nicæa, 33. Nice, various buildings erected by the emperor Hadrian, 234. Synod of Nicæa held, 282. Overturned by an earthquake, 501. Nicanor, one of the disciples of Christ, 224. Nicetas, patrician and count of the guards, 381. Nicetas, patrician, sends the sacred sponge to Constantinople, 385. Nicholas (Saint), church in Constantinople, 397. Nicolaitan heretics, 252. Nicholas, one of the disciples of Christ, 224. Nicomedes, king of Bithynia, 174. Nicomedia, 35. Nicomedia, called Astacus by Nicomedes, 246, 255. Various buildings in it erected by the emperor Hadrian, 254. Metropolis of Bithynia, 284. Overturned by an earthquake, 293. Nicopolis, called Emmaus, 267. Nigræ, city, 35. Nilus (Saint), martyrdom, 280. Nile, which is also Geon, 34. Nineveh, by whom founded, 37. Ninus, city, 33. Ninus, 36, 37. Nisibis besieged by the king of the Persians, 287, 290. Handed over to Persis by the emperor Jovian, 299, 300. Nisyros, 30. Noah, 21, 24. Nomads, 271. Norici, 32. Novatus, the heretic, 271. Numa Pompilius, king of the Romans, 117. Founds the Capitol, 117. Bestows a congiarium, ibid. Dies, 118. Numerianus, emperor, 274. Coins minted by the emperor Heraclius, 386. Hadrian's market, 254. Valentinian condemns marriages, 260. Nymphas, one of the disciples of Christ, 214. Nyssus mountain, 34.
O Oasis the Great, 35. Ahaziah, king of Judah, 98, 99. Octagon, in Constantinople, 337. Octavius Augustus, emperor, 189. Conquers the Egyptians, 190. His titles and names, ibid. Oded, the prophet, 104, 105. Odellam, the prophet, 120. Œnomaus, the inventor of circus games, 111. Olde, the prophet, 120. Olybrius, emperor, 321. Olybrius the younger, 321. Olympas, one of the disciples of Christ, 214. Start of the Olympiads, 104. Olympius, prefect of the praetorium, under Heraclius, 386, 387. Onesimus, one of the disciples of Christ, 213. Onesiphorus, one of the disciples of Christ, 214. Onia, city, 179. Onias, the high priest, 170, 172, 173, 178, 179, 188. Oppidaneum, 38. Horeb, 80. Oriens river, 40. Orion, 36, 37. Orus, king of Egypt, 46. Hosea, the prophet, 103, 104, 105, 109, 113, 116, 147. Osiris, king of Egypt, 46. Ostrus, a Goth count, 323. Otho, emperor, 246. Ozi, 80. Uzziah, king, 103, 104, 105. Oziel, the prophet, 96, 99.
P Pæones, 29, 31, 52. Palace, whence named, 109. Great Palace in Constantinople, 284. Palace of Antiochus, 380. Of Hormisdas, ibid. Of the Archangel, 585. Palace of the Flaccilianæ, 358. Placillianæ, 338. Lausi, 380. Palladium, 109, 284. Palmyra, city, 91. Pamphylians, 29. Pamphylia, 30, 33. Panaretus, the Book of Wisdom, 175. Civil loaves instituted at Antioch, 263. Civil loaves abolished by Heraclius, 389. Military loaves, 391. Camp bread provided to the Alexandrians, 276. Civil bread to the Constantinopolitans, 285. Famine of bread in Constantinople, 321. Panium, city, 193. Pannonians, 29, 32. Pæonia, or Pannonia, 262. Pantheon of Alexandria, 266. Paphlagonians, 32. Papias, martyr, 258. Papyrius Cursor, dictator, 171. Book of Paralipomenon, 154. Paratonion, 35. Parmenides, the philosopher, 163. Parmenion, one of the disciples of Christ, 224. Parnassus, 34. Parthenius mountain, ibid. Parthenope, 40. Parthians, 31. Pascha (Passover) of the Jews, typical, 2. True Pascha, Christ, 5. Pascha, 14th of the moon, 2, 211. Before and after the equinox, 3. Command that it be celebrated on the same day by the Nicene synod, 8. Celebrated by Solomon, 108. By Hezekiah, 115, 120. When celebrated in Egypt, 75, 76. Pascha celebrated by Christ, 212, 218, 229, 230, 225. Pascha, the primary feast of the Jews, 216, 226. When celebrated, 226. Pascha, the transit, 226. Pascha, passion and resurrection of Christ, 226, 228, 229. Pascha of the Christians, feast of feasts, 228. Paschal tables affixed in churches, 9. Paschalia, 371. Patricius, son of Aspar, killed, 323. Patricius, the illustrious, 380. Patrobas, one of the disciples of Christ, 213. Relics of Patrophilus, bishop of Scythopolis, 295. Patzates, king, 144. Paulinus, a familiar of Theodosius the Younger, 311, 313. Paul (Saint), the apostle, 231, 232. His eulogy, 234, 235. Paul, son of the emperor Maurice, 578. Peace returned to the churches, 295. Pelagius, the patrician, 328. Martyrdom of Pelei (Saint), 280. Peloponnese, 27. Pentateuch, 154. Pentecost, 223. Perinthus, 33. Perinthus, or Heraclea, 274. Persians, 31. Persabina, city, 193. Persians conquered by Constantius, 275. Kingdom of the Persians wiped out, 170. Persecution of Christians under Domitian, 250. Under Trajan, 252. Under Antoninus, 257, 258. Under Severus, 266. Under Decius, 270. Under Diocletian, 275, 276, 277. Perseus, 38, 39, 40, 41. Persian trees, 40. Persis, name of fortune, 39. Persis, a disciple of Christ, 224. Pertinax, emperor, 261. Years of the Petræi, 253. Martyrdom of Peter, bishop of Alexandria, 276. Peter, bishop of Alexandria, 1. Peter (Saint), first bishop of Antioch and Rome, 221, 230. Peter, Master of Soldiers under Justinian, 335. Peter, son of the emperor Maurice, 378. Peter, Curopalates, brother of the emperor Maurice, 379. Pekah, king, 107. Phæacus, a Persian, 401.
A Phæaura, wife of Saturn, 36. Phaeton, called the sun, 46. Pharao Nachor, 48. Nechao, 121. Pharus island, 173, 191. Phaser, 226. Phedalia, 264. Pherecydes the historian, 163. Pherecydes, 144. Phidalia, 265. Philaretus the Cubicularius, 384. Philemon, one of Christ’s disciples, 214. Philippicus, Count of the Excubitors, 380. Philippopolis, 55. Philip, one of Christ’s disciples, 224. Philip the Apostle, 229. Philip Junior, emperor, 269. He kills Gordian, 270. A Christian, ibid. He dies, ibid. Philip Junior, emperor, 374. Philistines, 82. Philo Judæus, 230. Philologus, one of Christ’s disciples, 213. Philoxenus, consul, 331. Phinippus, archon of Athens, 137. Phison river, 34. Phlegon, one of Christ’s disciples, 213. Phocea, 33. Phoebe, Christ’s disciple, 224. Phoenicians, 30, 31. Phua, king of the Assyrians, 106. Phrygians, 29. Phrygia, 30, 52. Phrygia Salutaris, 275. Picus, who is also Jupiter, 36, 37, 38. His tomb, 44. Pilate becomes procurator of Judea, 208. Pindar, 161. Pionius (St.), martyr, 270. Palace bakery at Constantinople, 341. Placidia, daughter of Valentinian the Younger, 315, 320. Wife of Olybrius, 320. Placidia house, 303. Palace of the Placilliani, 338. Plagues of the Egyptians, 71, 72. Plato, urban prefect, 167, 169, 329. Plautianus, consul, is killed, 266. Plutarch the philosopher, 240. Prasini, forbidden from public offices by Marcian, 320. Prieme, 33. Prisca, Christ’s disciple, 221. Priscilla and Maximilla, heretics, 263. Priscus, Count of the Excubitors, tonsured as a cleric, 381. B Sacred house of St. Probus at Cæsarea, 327. House of Probus at Constantinople, 337. Probus, emperor, 273. Killed, 274. Probus, called emperor, 337. Roman nobles, when so called, 163. Prochorus, one of Christ’s disciples, 221. Proclus, proconsul of Asia, 270. Proclus, formerly prefect, is beheaded, 303. Proclus, interpreter of dreams, 331. Procopius the tyrant, 301. Prometheus, 78. Suburban estate of Promotus, 389. Four great prophets, 153. How prophecies were written, 133, 154. Proteus Island, 173, 191. Prusias, city, 292. Psammeticus, 121. Pseudo-prophets, 96. Psomtomfacti, called Moses, 76. Psychristus, chief physician, 322. Ptolemais, 35. C Ptolemy king of Egypt, 157. Other Ptolemies, kings of Egypt: Ptolemy Alexander, 182, 183; Dionysus, 183, 186; Epiphanes, 176; Evergetes, 174, 176, 180; son of Lagus, 171; Philadelphus, 172; Philopator, 176; Philometor, 178; Physcon, 182; Pothinus, 183; Soter, 172. Publius, emperor, 269. Prudens, one of Christ’s disciples, 201. Pulcheria, daughter of the emperor Arcadius, 506. Born, 306. Proclaimed Augusta, 309, 310, 311. Marries Marcian, 319. Circus pulpits, 359. Novatus abolishes penance, 271, 272. Pogonias, comet, 332. Polycarp (St.) and his martyrdom, 257, 258. Pompeiopolis, 35. Pompey captures Jerusalem, 181. Called Imperator; builds a theater in Rome, 185. Son-in-law of Julius Cæsar, 186. Pompey, brother of Hypatius, slain, 359. Phrygian apple of unusual size, 316. Cause of divorce between Theodosius the Younger and Eudocia Augusta, ibid. Bridge built at Constantinople by Justinian, 335. Bridge of St. Callinicus, 391. D High priests of the Hebrews and their catalogue, 188, 207. Pontius, whence Pilate was so called, 220. His death, 229, 230. Gate of St. Æmilianus at Constantinople, 263. Gate of the Decimani at Constantinople, 304. Golden Gate at Constantinople, 379, 389. Polyandrium, 393, 394. Fifth, ibid. Bronze Gates at Constantinople, 339. Porta Mortua, ibid. Portico of the Jerusalem temple, 207. Varie Portico at Constantinople, 281, 308, 337, 338, 379, 389. Domnini, Port of Julian, 382. Pothinus, Bishop of Lugdunum, 261. Feast of the Preaching of the Gospel, 223. Prænetum, city, 379. Presanctified gifts, 383, 386. Prætorium of the urban prefect, 337, 380. Prandiara at Constantinople, 307. Prasina faction, 112. Invention of royal purple, 43. Pusæus, consul, 322. Well of the Oath, 53. Pylæ, 324. Pyramus, mountain, 31. Pyrodes, called Mars, 47. Pythagoras the philosopher, 143. Q. Shrine of the Forty Martyrs at Constantinople, 319. Quadi, 33. Quadriporticus at Constantinople, 263. Quartus, one of Christ’s disciples, 214. Oak of Mamre, 32. Quinquennalia of Theodosius the Younger, 308, 309. The month of July called Quintilis, 187. R. Raasson, king of the Assyrians, 107, 109. Ravenna, 35. Theodoric, king of Italy, yields Ravenna, and dies there, 327. Regia at Constantinople, 284, 337. Regions of the city of Constantinople, 322. Art of reigning invented, 36. End of the kingdom of Judah, 136. Succession of the kingdom of the Jews destroyed, 184. Books of Kingdoms, 154. Remus and Romulus born, 503. Exposed in the woods and suckled by a wolf, 113. Golden statue of Remus, 110. Years of the Promise, 51, 52, etc. Resurrection of the dead through the succession of children, 237. Rhagau, 48. Rharna, a Persian, 401. Rhaguel, 64. Rhasia, region, 298. Rhea, 56. Statue of Rhea brought to Rome, 176. Rhegium, city, 337. Rhine river, 34. Rhinocoruri, 28, 29, 30. Death of Rhodanus, master of the palace, 301, 302. Rhodanus river, 34. Rhodes, 33. Shaken by earthquake, 175. Rius river, 34. Rome, 35. Rome founded, 109, 110. Romans, origin of, 27. Romans, derivation of the name, 109. Romanus the Scholasticus, 330. Romulus kills his brother, 110. His death, 117. Ruben, 59. Death of Rufinus, master of the palace, 306. Death of the Prætorian prefect Rufinus, ibid. Rufinus the quæstor under Justinian, 336. Rufus, one of Christ’s disciples, 213. Russata faction, 112. Ruth, book of, 151. S. Sabaci, 145. Sabbath, any holiday, 211. Secundo-Primum, 211. Sabec, 55. Rape of the Sabine women, 113. Sadoc, 91. Saduc the high priest, 99. Sael, 53. Saen, Persian general, 387. Sagarius river, 34. Salatiæi, 30, 31. Salem, 50. Salina, 185. Salli, 31. Sallustius born, 183. Dies, 183. Sallustius, Prætorian prefect, 307. Salmanazar, king of the Assyrians, 107, 108. Salona, 33. Samas, 91, 92, 93, 119. Samaria, city, 181, 193. Samaritans imitating the Christian, 336. Conflict between Samaritans and Jews regarding sacred rites, 180. Samaritan rebellion, 327. Under Justinian, 335, 336. Samosata, 33. Years of the Samosatenes, 248. Samothracia, 33. Samson the judge, 82, 83. Samuel the prophet, 83, 84. Relics of the prophet Samuel translated to Constantinople, 308. Samus, 33. Sapor, king of the Persians, besieges Nisibis, 285, 290. Saracens, 32, 52. Saræas the high priest, 131. Sarapion, Bishop of Antioch, 263. Sarazar, 116. Sarbaras, Persian general, 385. Besieges Constantinople, 392. Sardanapalus, 37, 40. Sardania, 30. Sardinia, 33. Sardis, 35. Sarinæi, 33. Sarmatians, 27, 29, 30, 32, 35. Sarra, 52, 53, 54, 57. Satala, 33. Saturn, 56, 57. Sauromatæ, 27. Saul the king, 84. Scala Chalcedonensis at Constantinople, 308, 309. Scamander river, 34. Scamma of the circus, 283. Scevophylacium, 337. Schola Palatina VI and VII, 269.
A Scholarii, 269. Scipio Africanus, 69. Sclavi, 395, 396. Scythæ, 31, 32, 41. Scythæ Egyptii, 47. Scythismus, 23, 49. Scythopolis, 35. Sebaste, city, 181, 193. Sedecias the false prophet, 96. Sedecias, king, 129, 130, 136.
INDEX IN CHRONICON PASCHALE
Seditio, known as Nica, under Justinian, 336, 340. Seleuciensium, years of, 182. Seleucus Nicator, founder of Antioch, 41. Seleucus Callinicus, king, 175, 178. Selinuns, city, 233. Sellum, high priest, 119, 131. Selum, king, 107. Selymbria, 307. Semegar, 78. Semeronius, 57. Semiramis, queen, 36. Senate house at Constantinople, 284, 307, 337. Sennacherim, king of the Assyrians, 115, 116. Sephora, 64. Lord's Sepulchre burned by the Persians, 385. Seraphim of the Jerusalem temple translated to Antioch, 217. Serapion, bishop of Antioch, 263. Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople, 382. He crowns Heraclius, 383, 390, 391. Serpent worshipped as God, 23. Seruch, 48. Sesostris, king, 47, 48. Sestus, 33. Seth, 21. That is, foundation, 77. Seth at the altar, proverb, 94. Severianum of Byzantium, 265. Death of Severus the emperor, 267. Severus becomes emperor under Galerius Maximianus, 278, 279. Severus the heretic, from whom the Severians are named, 261. Siarsura, city, 400. Names of the Sibyls, 108. Sicani, 33. Sicily devastated by Gaiseric, 315. Sidonii, 27. Sign of Christ above the Capitol in Constantinople, 308. Silas, one of Christ’s disciples, 224. Silentiarius, dignity, 328. Siloam, that is, sent, 153. Fountain, 115, 118. Silpius, mountain, 40, 41. Martyrdom of Silvanus, bishop of Emesa, 279. Martyrdom of Silvanus, bishop of Gaza, 280. Silvanus, one of Christ’s disciples, 224. Silvanus, count and decurion of Nisibis, 300. Silvia, ravished by Mars, 113. Simeon, son of Jacob, 59. Death of St. Simeon the Stylite, and his relics, 321. Simois, river, 34. Simon the Cananaean, 252. Simon Magus, 256. His epistle to the emperor Heraclius, 402. Sirmium, 289, 303. Sisara, 79. Smyrna shaken by an earthquake, 262. Smyrna, city, 270. Simon, high priest, 172, 173, 182, 188, 219. Simon, prefect of the temple, 177. Simon, son of Saint Joseph, 203. Simon, or Simeon, bishop of Jerusalem, 216. Simon Cleopas, 252. Simonides, 143. Sinetus, Castrensis, 384. Sinope, 35. Smyrna, 35. Sipylus, mountain, 40, 41. Sirach, writer of the Book of Wisdom, 175. Siroes, king of the Persians, 398, 399, 400. B To Theodosius the Younger, 310, 313, 317, 318. Under Zeno, 327. Under Justinian, 341. Tetranymphum, 234. Tetrapylum, bronze, at Constantinople, 318. Socrates is born, 162. He dies, 188. Sogdianus, king of the Persians, 166. Soine, 33. Sol, king of Egypt, 46. Statue of the Sun at Constantinople, 263. Solomon, 91, 92. His book of remedies, 113. Other books, 134. Sophianæ, 384. Sophocles, 162. His death, 166. Sophonias the prophet, 119, 151. Sor, or Tyrus, city, 136. Sosibius, Antiochene, 191. Sosipater, one of Christ’s disciples, 214. Sosthenes, one of Christ’s disciples, 213. Sperchius, river, 34. The holy sponge brought to Constantinople, 385. Sphoracii, tract, 337. Statue of Constantine the Great at Rome, and its inscription, 280. Pectoral statue of Arcadius and Pulcheria, 309. Statue of Arcadius at Constantinople, 313. Of Theodosius II, 303. Of Theodosius the Younger, 309. Twofold status of man, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240. Stephanus, one of Christ’s disciples, 214. Death and eulogy of Saint Stephen, 226, 251. Church of Saint Stephen at Constantinople, 384. Stilbon, called Mercury, 47. Strategium at Constantinople, 265. Church of Studius at Constantinople, 321. Church of Studius of Saint John the Baptist, 397. Punishments of the damned, which are, 239. Surena, senator of the king of Persia, 299. Susa, 35. Susacim, king of Egypt, 92, 93. Susiana, 35. Sycæ, region at Constantinople, 303. Sycæ, restored by Justinian, 335, 393. House of Symmachus the consul, 337. Symmachus, interpreter of the Holy Scripture, 266. Synagogue of the Samaritans, 327. Synesius, count of the largesses, 308. Council of Nicaea convened by Constantine the Great, 8. Council of Nicaea, 282. Constantinople, 301. Ephesus, 314. Second Council of Ephesus, 317. Chalcedonian, 319. Council of Constantinople under Justinian, 344. Syri, 32. Syria of Judæa, 35. Years of the Syro-Macedonians, 171. Syrus, from whom Syria is named, 42, 43. C T Tabarini, 27. Taiani, 34. Taramantes, 27. Tarquinius Priscus, king of the Romans, 129. Tarsus, whence named, 39, 40. Tarsus, city, 294. Writings of Tatian the heretic, 260, 261. Tauchista, 33. Taunium, 55. Taurianna, 27, 30. Taurii, 27. Taurus, king of Crete, 42, 43. Tautamæi, 29. Pagan temples destroyed, 282. Temple of Jerusalem, 91. Its restoration, 143. Temple without wood, 249. Temple, what to Nestorius?, 364. Tenedus, 35. Teos, 33. Terebinthus, city, 254. Teridon, 35. Tetrarches created by Archelaus, king of the Jews, his brothers, Herod Antipas, Lysanias, and Philippus, 206. Thalassius, a wicked man, 297. Thales the Milesian, 113. Thales the philosopher, 145. Thamnor, 91. Thamiz, identical with Adonis, 130. Thara, 48, 51. Thasus, 33. Theatre of Pompey at Rome, 183. Of Marcellus, 193. Of Daphne, 247. Thebr, 27. Thebais, 29. Death of Themistocles, 162. Theocritus under the emperor Justin, 331. Theoctista, daughter of Maurice, 379, 380. Theodora, wife of the emperor Justinian, 334. Theodora, stepdaughter of Maximianus Herculius, 277. Theodora, sister of Constantine the Great, 278. Theodoret condemned in the Council of Ephesus, 317. Theodoret condemned, 373 seqq. Church of St. Theodore at Constantinople, 337. Theodoric, king of Italy, his justice, 327. He grants Ravenna, 328. Theodorus of Mopsuestia, 360, 361, 370, 371. Theodorus, urban prefect under Maurice, 380. Theodorus Syncellus, ibid. Theodorus the patrician, 394. Theodorus Commerciarius, 394. Theodosian bath at Constantinople, 314. Theodosius the Great, emperor, 305. He expels the Arians and destroys the shrines of the pagans, ibid. He comes to Rome, 305. He finds the head of Saint John the Baptist, ibid. Dedication of his statue, 305. He dies, is taken, 306. Theodosius the Younger, emperor, 306. He is born, 307. Golden statue, 309. He enters Constantinople, 308. His nuptials, 312. Returns to Constantinople from Asia, 315. Theodosius, son of the emperor Maurice, is crowned, 377. His nuptials, 378. He is killed, 379. Theodosius, aide to the master (of offices), 380. Theodotio, 263. Theodotus the heretic, 263. Theodotus Drungarius, 400. Theognis, poet, 143. Theophanes, a wicked man, 382. Theopolis, called Antioch, 340. Theotechnus, presbyter of Antioch, 296. Baths of Commodus dedicated, 201. Constantinian baths at Constantinople, 289. Death of Thermantia, wife of the emperor Honorius, 309. Thessalonica, city of Illyricum, 341. Thesbis, city, 161. Thilath Phalsar, king of the Assyrians, 109. Thiramus, king of Tyre, 91. Thola, 80. Church of the holy apostle Thomas at Constantinople, 320, 325. Thomas, notary under the emperor Justinian, 338, 340. Thomas, patriarch of Constantinople, 381. He dies, 382. Thracia Scythica, 297. Thraces, 27. Earthquake under Constantius, 293. UnderINDEX OF MIXOBARBAROUS WORDS IN THE CHRONICON PASCHALE
Thraucun, a place, 289. Thuberis, river, 34. Thulis, king of Egypt, 46. Thurras, 37. Thuscene, 27. Thyrsi (S.), church of, at Constantinople, 319. Tiberius, emperor, expedition against the Britons and Armenians, 194, 206. His death, 236. Tiberis, river, 54. Tiberius Constantinus, emperor, 376. His death, ibid. Tigsitani, 33. Timotheus (S.), relics of, 293. Timotheus, one of Christ’s disciples, 214. Timotheus, bishop of Caesarea, 327. Tirannii, 32. Titus, one of Christ’s disciples, 224. Titus subdues the Jews, 246. Becomes emperor, 249. Dies, ibid. Tomiris, queen, 144. Torques, gold, of the emperors, 338, 340. Trabs, a comet, 323. Trachonitis, province, 238. Trajanus, emperor, persecutes the Christians, 250. Remits tributes, 253. Dies, ibid. Tribunal of the Circus, 284, 285. Tribunal of the Hebdomon, 304, 307, 329, 330. Tributorum, remission of, granted by Trajan, 253. Tricameratum, a type of public building, 254. Triconchum, at Constantinople, 317. Trilithum, 303. Trinitatem, Trismegistus acknowledges the, 47. Triptolemus, 42. Trisagium, 384. Triumviri, 189, 190. Troadensis, portico, 318; wall, 319. Troas, 30, 35. Troglodytae, 52. Trophimus, one of Christ’s disciples, 214. Tryphon, called Ptolemy Evergetes, king of Egypt, 174. Tryphon, praetorian prefect under Justinian, 337. Tryphosa, disciple of Christ, 224. Tuba, a comet, 323. Tullus Hostilius, king of the Romans, 118. His death, 120. Turres, castellated, 394, 396. Turris Stratonis, 193. Tyana, city, 370. Tychicus, one of Christ’s disciples, 214. Tyrannio, bishop of Tyre, martyr, 279. Tyrennii, 27. Tyrinii, 33. Tyrus, by whom founded, 42, 80. Tzangae, 332. Tzathius, king of the Lazi, 332, 333. Tzithas, spatharius, 380.
U Urbanus, one of Christ’s disciples, 213. Urias, high priest, 105, 109, 115. Urias, prophet, 122. Ursus, urban prefect, 309, 310.
V Vafres, king of Egypt, 91. Valens, emperor, 301. Valentia, 109. Valentinianus the Younger, emperor, 302. Is raised to the purple, ibid. Valentinianus the Elder, becomes emperor, 300. His justice and severity, 301, 302. Dies, 303. Valentinianus III, called Augustus, 314. Comes to Constantinople, 313. Takes Eudoxia as his wife, ibid. His death, 320. Valentinus, heretic, 260. Valeria, daughter of Diocletian, 277. Valeriana, wife of Tzathius, king of the Lazi, 332. Valerianus, emperor, 271. His death, 272. Valerianus, brother of Eudocia, Augusta, 311, 313. Varanes, consul, 307. Varduli, 33. Vascones, ibid. Vectigalia, invented by Darius, 143. Velici, 33. Veltiones, 27. Venationis, inventor, Nemrod, 36. Veneta, faction, 112. Marcianus emperor favors this, 320. Venetia, 112. Venetus, color, 112. Venus, for harlotry, 46. Vergitio, fort, 303. Verina, wife of Leo the Great, 325. Vespasianus, succeeds Nero, 166. Is elected emperor, 245. Destroys the kingdom of the Jews, ibid. Comes to Rome, ibid. His statues in Daphne, 247. Destroys the race of David, 248. His death, 248. Vestales, buried alive for unchastity, 173, 219. Vestis, white, of Hypatius the patrician, 276. Of the baptized, 588. Vetranio, emperor, 289, 290, 291, 292. Vexillum, erected on towers as a sign of dominion, 299. Vexillum, Venetian, burned, 383. Vicennalia, of Constantine the Great, 282. Of Constantius, 293. Vicomagistri, established at Jerusalem by Hadrian, 251. Victoriae, about the Persians, messages of, 313. Vigiliae, nocturnal, at Rome, 267. Vineas, Domitian forbids the planting of, in cities, 250. Virgilius, born, 184. Virgo, puerpera, worshipped by the Egyptians, 157. Vitalis, heretic, from whom the Vitaliani heretics are so called, 296. Vitellius, emperor, 246. Volagesus, bishop of Nisibis, 291. Vocales, who are so called, 86. Vulcanus, 45.
X Xenodochium, of Sampson at Constantinople, 337. Xenophanes, philosopher, 143. Xenophon, 167. Xerolophus, at Constantinople, 313. Xerxes, king of the Persians, 161. Captures Athens, 166. Xylocercetae, 307. Xylocircus, at Constantinople, 323.
Z Zaba, large and small, 392. Zabulon, 60. Zacharias, king of the Jews, 107. Zacharias, prophet, 130, 142, 131. Zacharias, son of Joda, 101, 161. Zacharias, father of St. John the Baptist, relics brought to Constantinople, 309. Zacharias, Patriarch of Jerusalem, 382. Is taken captive by the Persians, 385. Zacynthus, 28. Zambri, king, 107. Zames, 37. Zara, 400. Zarath, Ethiopian, 93. Zeb, 80. Zeno, master of the soldiers, 324. Becomes emperor, ibid. Flees into Isauria, 355. Returns to Constantinople and occupies the Palace, ibid. Dies, 328. Zenobius, presbyter, martyrdom of, 294. Zeuxippus, at Constantinople, 265, 284, 285, 322. Zilgbi, king of the Huns, 333. Zoroastres, 37. Zorobabel, 142, 143, 146.
INDEX OF MIXOBARBAROUS WORDS IN THE CHRONICON PASCHALE
*Quæ enucleantur in Glossario mediæ et infimæ Græcitatis.*[Entries below are preserved in the original Greek for indexing; translations/definitions are omitted per instructions.] [index: entries preserved]
A Asprophorein (to wear white): 383. Astariov: 117. Asphalizein (to secure): 338, 339. Ataxia (disorder): 294, 321, 329. Augusta: 312, 313. Augustus: passim. Authentesthai (to be authorized): 335, 344. Aphierotheinai (to be consecrated): 509, 313.
B Baion (palm branch): 302. Ballein (to throw): 339. Bandon (band/standard): 383. Barbarikon (barbarian/foreign): 267. Basileiai (kingdoms/empires): 154. Basileion (palace/royal residence): 32, 46, 99, 170, 333. Belon (needle/point): 312. Benetia (Venetia/Blue faction): 112, 320. Ber-edos: 325. Belon (needle): 325. Blegas: 336, 339, 341. Bikennalia (vicennalia): 282. Bindes: 339. Bithanatoi (self-slayers): 340. Bisektos (bissextile): 388. Bokalion (small vessel): 86. Bourdon (mule): 113. Bourbigalion: 309. Bouttion (but/cask): 275, 276. Brachialion (bracelet): 393. Broumalia: 114. Broutides: 113.
Γ Gadaros (donkey): 338. Genealogia (genealogy): 23. Genethlia (birthday): 236. Gennema (offspring): 392. Gounarioi (furriers): 337. Gramma (letter): 386. Gymnasion (gymnasium): 266, 303.
Δ Daimonarios: 383. Despoina (Lady): 303, 311. Dexesthai (to receive): 332, 336. Demiourgia (creation): 395. Demoi (factions/people): 329, 336. Demosion (public treasury): 254, 289, 306, 314, 315, 329, 335. Demotai (members of factions): 337, 340, 389. Dirigeuein (to be directed/governed): 285. Diagraphai (records): 389. Diadexesthai (to succeed): 186, 318, 325, 335, 336, 337, 377. Diadosis (distribution): 390. Diakope (interruption): 325, 337. Diasozein (to save): 399, 400. Diasostes (saviour): 400. Diapsalma (musical interlude): 86. Dikastai (judges): 43. Dioiketes (administrator): 380. Didonai (to give): 326, 383. Diktator (dictator): 169, 186. Dokarion: 390. Dokis: 325, 360. Doux (Duke): 297, 327. Drouggarios (drungary): 400. Dodekapylon (twelve-gated): 58. Doron (gift): 385.
E Egkainia (dedication): 286, 294. Egkainizein (to dedicate): 303, 314, 315, 282, 283. Egkratetai (the self-controlled): 260. Eidoi (Ides): passim. Eikosieteris (twenty-year anniversary): 282, 285. Eirenarches (peace officer): 257. Eis (one): 322, 325. Ekdosis (edition/publication): 344. Ekklesia (church): passim. Ektetraentou: 337. Ekphonein (to proclaim): 322. Hellenes (Greeks/pagans): 295, 322. Embolos (colonnade): passim. Enegchein (to carry/bring): 327. Enthronizein (to enthrone): 294. Exagrammos (six-gram coin): 386. Exarchos (exarch): 386, 387. Exerchetos (outgoing): 306, 320. Exkoubeit-or (excubitor): 328, 329, 331, 339, 382. Exkousseuein (to excuse/exempt): 316. Expediton (expedition): 314, 335. Extelios: 191. Exokionites (dweller outside the columns): 303, 327. Hoi Exothen (those from outside): 23, 221. Epairein (to lift up): 303, 319, 320. Epano (above): 329, 337. Epano ton cheirotonion (superior of ordinations): 381. Eparchos Praitorion (prefect of the praetorium): passim. Epinemesis (indiction cycle): 334, 335, 374, 381, 383, 388, 395. Epinikia (victory celebrations): 310. Epipoiesai (to make in addition): 400, 401. Epitagma (decree): 282. Epiphanestatos (most illustrious): 306, 307, 309, 324, 329, 275. Ergasteriakoi (workmen): 389. Euangelismos (Annunciation): 391. Euphemein (to acclaim): 322, 384. Echein (to have): 395, 397, 401. Eothina (morning hymns): 298.
Z Zaba: 339. Zabatos: 393.
H Hedikton (edict): 345, 378.
Θ Thanatikon (plague/pestilence): 335. Theatron (theatre): 312. Theoptotos (God-fallen/divinely ordained): 386. Theophania (Epiphany): 316. Theorein (to observe): 310, 326, 327.
I Illustrios (illustrious): 380. Imperator: 192. Indiktion (indiction): passim. Domestikos (domesticus): 298, 331. Indiktion Heliake Seleniake (Solar and Lunar indiction): 381, 382, 385, 388. Indiktos (indiction): 187. Iounior (June): 269, 374. Hippikon (hippodrome/circus): 281.
K Kaballarios (cavalier): 382, 393, 397. Katharos (pure): 271. Kathierousthai (to be consecrated): 302. Kathisma (seat/imperial box): 329, 331, 338, 539. Kath' hon (according to which): 85, 188, 189, 191, 263. Kalandai (Kalends): passim. Kalein (to call): 114. Kalopodinos: 402. Kamis-in (shirt): 394. Kampagion (boot): 285. Kampos (field): 110, 319, 384. Kamptos (bent/curved): 112, 285, 321. Kamonein (to labor): 394. Kandela (lamp): 251, 295. Kandidatos (candidatus): 269, 337, 338, 340, 380. Kanonarches (canonarch): 235. Kanon (canon): 294. Kapitolion (Capitol): 167, 117, 308. Karabos (vessel/light ship): 380, 382, 383. Karoucha (carriage): 308, 318. Kastellion (fortlet): 303, 382, 401. Kastresios (camp official): 276, 384. Kastron (fort): 326. Katakrazein (to cry out against): 391. Katalektion (roster): 395. Katartia (outfitting): 394. Kataskeuasthenai (to be constructed): 150. Katastasis (establishment): 334. Katastema (position/department): 118. Kat-echizein (to instruct): 322. Keleusis (order): 398, 399, 401. Kellarika (cellar/provisions): 294. Kensor (censor): 286. Kenturion (centurion): 258. Keration (carat): 579. Kerkesion (Cercusium): 110, 519. Kephalis (chapter/head): 123, 129. Kedeuein (to bury): 381, 384. Kerap-sia: 385. Keros (wax): 285, 327. Kiborion (ciborium): 389. Kisterna (cistern): 312, 318, 335, 382. Klerikos (cleric): 384, 390. Kleros (clergy): 298. Kongiarion (congiarium): 117. Kodra: 254. Koimethenai (to rest/be buried): 296. Koinonikon (communion hymn): 390. Kokk-eros (scarlet): 286. Kom-bendon: 323. Kom-es (count): 392, 327. Kom-es Domestikon (Count of the Domestics): 298, 310. Kom-es Exkoubitoron (Count of the Excubitors): 331, 380, 384. Kom-es Largitionon (Count of the Largesses): 308, 380. Kom-es Opsariou: 391. Kommerk-iarios (customs official): 394, 397. Kontarion (pole/spear): 383. Korkodeilos (crocodile): 156. Koryphaios (leader): 392. Koubikoularios (cubicularius): 231, 264, 298, 312, 330, 331, 336, 339, 382. Koubouklion (cubiculum): 58, 312. Kourator (curator): 370, 380, 385. Kouropalates: 332, 379. Kochlias (spiral/staircase): 304, 313. Kochlion (snail/spiral): 326, 339. Krabb-ataria (bed makers): 380. Krazein (to shout): 316, 318, 323, 336, 339, 391. Kratos (power): 164. Ktethor (founder/possessor): 202, 322, 389, 400. Kuestor (quaestor): 321, 336. Kuinkuen-nalia (quinquennalia): 308, 309. Kunegin (hunting): 205. Kyriake (Sunday): 329, 322. Kyriaken: 283. Kodix (codex): 330, 335, 343.
Λ Labraton (standard): 325. Laimomakellion (gorget): 307. Lampron (bright): 397. Laos (people): 379. Leipsanon (relic): 293, 295, 340, 376, 381, 384, 397. Lektikion (litter): 319. L-exis: 371, 377, 380. Leptocharakteros: 312. Leistadioktes (pirate-chaser): 327. Libellos (petition): 310. Lithoboloi (stone-throwers): 329, 339. Limenarion (port records): 324. Lim-eton (limit/border): 45, 271. Litaneuein (to perform litanies): 324. Litania (litany): 319. Lite (procession/prayer): 384. Logothetes (logothete): 379, 394. Logos (word/reason): 313, 326. Louppa: 340. Lychnapsia (lighting of lamps): 309.
M Magganika (machinery/artifice): 290, 395, 396. Magganon (engine/machine): 290. Magistros (magister): 171, 313, 380, 393, 397. Magkipion (bakery): 341. Mathema (lesson/learning): 358. Makarites (the late/blessed): 205, 297. Mandaton (mandate): 113. Maniakes (torque/collar): 140. Maniakion: 358. Manteion (oracle): 44. Mapparis (napkin bearer): 386. Martios (March): 264. Marturein (to testify/witness): 250, 252, 257, 258, 266, 268, 270, 272, 297, 319. Martyrion (martyrium/witness): 270, 321, 340. Megaleiot-es (majesty): 387. Meros (part/side): 112, 218, 320, 329, 336, 339, 380. Mese (middle/central street): 320, 380, 383. Mesiaulon (vestibule): 335. Mesopente-koste (mid-Pentecost): 391. Metalabein (to partake): 390. Mechane (machine): 290. Mekothen (from afar): 155. Mikros (small): 155. Milion (milestone/miliarion): 401. Missa (mass): 338. Monastriai (nuns): 386. Mone (monastery): 294. Monon (only): 337. Monoxylon (monoxylon/canoe): 391, 396.
INDEX OF MIXOBARBAROUS TERMS IN THE PASCHAL CHRONICLE
Monoporton (single gate): 539. Mouseion (museum): 316. Molos (pier/mole): 580. N Nesteiai (fasts): 586. Nika (victory/conquer): 336, 341. Notarios (notary): 355, 384. Noumeros (number/company): 297. Nyteparchos (night-prefect): 321. Nounai (Nones): passim. Ξ Xylokerkitai (those of the Xylokerkos): 307. Xylokerkos: 323. O Oikos (house): 319, 320, 321, 322, 325, 327, 340, 378, 392, 397. Oinarion: 396. Oinolibanon (wine-frankincense): 176. Onoma (name): 391. Oxylade: 45. Opisthangona (cords for pulling from behind): 322. Ordinarioi (ordinaries): 538. Orion (boundary): 314, 399. Oros (mountain/boundary): 327. Orphanotropheion (orphanage): 395. Hoti (that): 332, passim. Oucharios (eucharius/vicar): 297. Ochlos (crowd): 318. Opsonarion (fish-dish/side-dish): 391. Π Paidion (child): 321. Pakteusai (to covenant): 397. Pakton (pact/tribute): 334, 394, 396. Palation (palace): 113, 117. Pallenkarios (soldier/palatine): 392. Pallion (pallium): 44. Panegyris (assembly/festival): 254. Papas (pope/priest): 277, 382. Papyleon: 268, 208. Paragaudin (caftan): 532. Parakenotes: 337. Paralipomenai (omitted/Chronicles): 154. Paramenein (to remain): 39, 193. Paranymphos (groomsman): 315. Parasynagein (to hold unauthorized meetings): 273. Parataxis (battle formation): 286, 293. Paratrapezion (at the table): 390. Paraphoseuein: 274. Paroikia (parish/sojourn): 279. Paschalias heorte (feast of Easter): 377. Paschalion (Paschal cycle/book): 171, 274, 381. Patriarchos (patriarch): 116. Patrikios (patrician): passim. Peleikizein (to behead): 172. Pelma (sole of foot): 112. Penolion: 310. Pentekoste (Pentecost): 381, 286. Periodeuein (to travel around): 281. Petrarion (stone-throwing engine): 394. Pianein (to take/seize): 46, 216, 220, 281. Ploummia (lead balls/plumbum): 532. Poiein (to do/make): 246, 295, 390, 399, 401. Politeuesthai (to live as a citizen/act publicly): 300, 320. Politikoì artoi (state-distributed loaves): 389. Pompeuein (to process): 46, 307, 325, 380. Porta (gate): 205, 318, 389, 393, 397, 394, 396. Portikos (portico): 337. Poterion (cup): 390. Poulpiton (pulpit): 339. Praida (booty/prey): 247. Praideuein (to plunder): 325, 389. Praipositos (praepositus): 330, 351. Praisenteuein (to be present): 112. Praisenton (presence/corps): 112, 325. Praitorion (praetorium): 337. Presbeia (embassy): 238, 392, 396. Presbyteros (presbyter/elder): 295. Primos (primus): 110. Programma (edict/notice): 345. Proerchesthai (to go forth/process): 274, 583. Proegiasmena (pre-sanctified): 385, 386. Prokessos (processus): 284, 325, 376, 382, 384. Prokourson (skirmish): 399. Promachon (rampart): 394. Proodos (procession): 687. Prosomilein (to converse with): 318. Prosphonesis (address): 330. Prosopon (person/face): 401. Protisthesthai (to propose/set forth): 345. Protiktor (protector): 337. Prouthypnion: 308. Protos synkletou (first of the senate): 323. Pteron (wing): 397. Ptomatizein (to fall): 400. Ptochotrophos (poor-house): 382. Pyrgokastellos (tower-fortress): 393, 396. P Regeon (region): 208, 322. Referendarios (referendary): 297. Regia (the street): 284. Rhyx: 44, 286, 327, 333. Ripidion (liturgical fan): 590. Roga (stipend): 386. Rogeuein (to distribute stipend): 331, 339. Rousaios (Red/faction): 44, 112, 117, 332. Romaios (Roman): 229. Romania (Roman Empire): 330, 337. Σ Saginaw (net/dragnet): 394. Sagitta (arrow): 518, 534. Sakellarios (sacellarius): 381, 383. Sakra (imperial sacred missive): 303, 534. Sgaudaros: Vide Gadaros. Salpinx (trumpet): 323. Samaritizein: 536. Sandalis (sandal): 395. Sarabara (trousers): 132, 134. Sellarios (seat/stool): 410. Semnophorein (to walk majestically): 397. Senatos (senate): 307, 337. Senior: 269. Semeion (sign/standard): 289. Signon (standard): 538. Signochriston (signed with Christ): 308. Silentiarios (silentiary): 327. Sitometrion (grain-measure): 287, 294. Sitonikon (grain-tax): 316. Skala (ladder/wharf/stairs): 308, 309. Skafokarabos (skiff/boat): 394, 396. Skeyophylakion (sacristy): 382, 385, 390. Skeyophylax (sacristan): 382. Skenoma (tent/tabernacle): 286, 304, 306, 321, 322, 382, 383, 399. Skoulka (scout/patrol): 396, 399. Skrinion (scrinium): 337. Soros (coffin/shrine): 397. Soubadiouba: 380. Souda (dike/trench): 396. Soudaton (sudatorium/sweat-cloth): 396. Spatharios (spatharius): 231, 298, 318, 336, 339, 340, 380, 391. Spathion (small sword): 112. Spasthai (to draw sword): 337. Staurophaneia (festival of the Cross): 286. Stetharion (breastplate/chest-piece): 111, 260, 309, 332. Stele (stele/column): 110, 285, 338. Sticharion (tunic/vestment): 332, 336, 31. Stichos (verse): 390. Stratengin (generalship/strategy): 265. Stratelates (general): 298, 317, 325, 337, 379. Stratelasia (generalship): 325. Stratopedon (camp): 287. Stylites (stylite): 321. Syggilin (seal/sigillum): 395. Synkellos (syncellus): 387, 394. Synkletike (senator's wife): 327. Synkletikos (senator): 186. Synagesthai (to gather): 323. Synaxis (assembly/synaxis): 292, 321, 392. Syndoiazein (to deliberate): 26. Syntelestes (contributor/tax-payer): 107, 282. Syntomia (shortness/summary): 263. Sphendon (sling): 302, 339. Schema (habit/form): 246, 310. Scholarios (scholarian): 269, 337, 339. Scholastikos (advocate/scholar): 380, 382. Schole (school): 269, 321. T Table (board/table): 9. Tablion (tablion/cloak-patch): 117. Taboularios (tabularius): 401. Tagma (regiment): 299. Tage (ration): 158, 251. Taktikos (tactician): 140. Taxeotes (policeman/official): 383. Taulin (small table): 332. Teleiothenai (to be fulfilled/completed): 258, 259, 261, 276, 277, 306. Telesmata (charms/tributes): 250. Telete (rite): 59. Tetranymphon (chamber of the bride): 254. Tetraplateia (public square): 254. Tetrapylon (four-gated arch): 318, 389. Tzangia (boots): 352. Toga (toga): 310. Topotere tes (vicar), poion ton topon (acting in the place): 356. Traktaizein (to act as a tractator): 359. Trapeza hagia (holy table/altar): 349, 300, 685, 25. Triakontaeteris (thirty-year anniversary): 286. Tribounalion (tribunal): 291, 30, 307. Tribounos (tribune): 297, 318. Trikonchos (tri-conch building): 317. Trikameron (three-part building): 354. Trilithos (three-stone monument): 305. Trioumouiratoria (triumvirate): 186, 191. Trioumouirator (triumvir): 186. Trisagion (thrice-holy hymn): 384. Tristates (one of the three leaders): 107. Troparion (troparion): 390. Troadhesios: 318, 339. Tympanizein (to beat/drum): 148. Y Hydreuesthai (to draw water): 335. Hypsosis (exaltation): 385. Hypat rion (consular dignity): 381. Hypateias ti einai (regarding the nature of the consulship): 277. Hypomn estikon (memorial/memorandum): 399, 301, 402. Φ Phaneros (manifest/public): 339, 340. Phantasia (appearance/apparition): 193. Familia (household): 394. Pheggos (light): 226. Fibla (fibula/brooch): 4. Philanthropia (humanity/clemency): 324, 335. Philika (friendly/friendly relations): 114. Phyllis (follis): 321, 391. Foresia (clothing/apparel): 43, 44, 117. Phoros (tribute): 109, 284, 305, 313, 329, 338, 380. Phragellion (scourge): 389. Phrous limenes (guarded harbors): 381. Phylake (guard/prison): 294. Phone (voice): 321. Phosaton (field-army): 396, 400. Phosteres (luminaries): 388. Phota agia (Holy Lights/Epiphany): 206. Photizein (to enlighten/baptize): 322, 332. Photisterion (baptistery): 395. X Chaganos (Chagan/Khagan): 393. Chartoularios (chartulary): 384. Chrmatizein (to transact/entitle/name): 187, 230, 285, 328, 331. Chrmatismos (transaction/title): 328. Chresis (use): 89, 90, 118, 119, 150, 152, 155, 156, 234. Christianizein (to become Christian): 257. Christianismos (Christianity): 356, 341. Chronos (time): 232, 318, 381. Chorikos (rural): 39, 113. Chorion (place/hamlet): 333, 370, 371. Ψ Psyche (soul): 247, 379. Psomion (morsel): 390.
ANALYTICAL INDEX TO THE COMPLETE WORKS OF GEORGE OF PISIDIA
(The reader is referred to the pages of this new edition.)
A Abares; their origin and fierce customs, 1265 et seqq.; they have a stammering tongue and a savage spirit, their speech is mixed, and their hands recklessly handle the sword, 1270 et seqq. Their frauds and deceits, 1272 b, 1284, 1285. They break into Constantinople, 1276, 1277; they besiege it on all sides, 1277 et seqq.; but by the protection of the Virgin Mary they are warred down, slaughtered, and perish, 1287, 1288 et seqq. Absinthe, the bitterness of, more useful than sweet honey, 1532 a. Hawks, with the juice expressed from bitter lettuce leaves, heal sickness, 1506 b. Acephali, the sects of, have many divisions everywhere, 1627 a. Egypt attributes divine honor even to vile reptiles, 1510 b. Air, a subtle body, poured around in every direction, flows, nor does it dissolve, 1149 a, b. Neither prince nor rich man is able to seize anything from it beyond what suffices, ibid. Summer, description of, 1457, 1458. Ages of human life, four, are figured by the four seasons of the year, 1487. Afflictions and calamities, for what purpose they profit in attaining the mercy of God, 1472, 1473. Lovers feel their desires grow languid if they immediately obtain what they covet, 1500 b. Ambition inflates the soul with arrows and instils a miserable swelling into them, 1493, 1494. Love of piety, in difficult matters and dangers, braces the nerves of the body the more, 1223 c. By love God punishes us, 1472 b. Anastasius (St.) had a father who was a magus, whose name was Ban; he himself was called Magundat; his country, Razech in Persis, 1682, 1683. He comes to Jerusalem, 1686 c, d. Taught by the priest Modestus, 1687 a. He is baptized and receives the name Anastasius, 1690 a. He embraces the monastic life, 1690, 1691. Violently assailed by the devil, he is cured by prayers, 1694 a. He has a vision, ibid. c, d. He sets out for Diospolis, about to beseech George the martyr, 1695 d; ascends Mount Garizim, and, led by heaven, comes to Caesarea of Strato, 1698. Having entered the temple of St. Euphemia, he mocks the magi who are busy there with their tricks, ibid.; but captured by soldiers, he is led before the tribunal of the governor Marzabana, 1699. His struggles and martyrdom, 1702 et seqq. Finally, bound by a noose, he succumbs, 1723 c. Famous for miracles after death, 1726, 1727. Angels, creation and nature of, 1415 a. Their various ministries, 1416, 1417. God endowed angels with fiery substances, wonderfully forming immaterial matter, 1502 b. The various orders of angels, 1548, 1549. Eels, what is their mode of procreation, 1512, 1513. Soul, its various operations, 1427, 1428; whence come its perturbations, ibid. The powers and faculties of the soul, 1491, 1492. The investigation of its union with the body is difficult, ibid. The devil is a thief of souls, 1492 b; but God is the physician; one must trust in Him, 1540 b. Animals that excel others are terrified by the smallest things, 1508 b. Bees, their craftsmanship and geometric knowledge in the construction of honeycombs, 1523, 1524. Water and fire are the common treasures of the poor, 1448 b. God turned the water around for the support of the earth, 1474 b. Spiders, their industry in fashioning webs and houses; and what they teach us, 1524, 1525. Sand, collected like a wall in the sea, is opposed against storms, 1475 b. Desire of silver tortures the spirits, 1379 b. Artaxerxes, a slave by origin, seizes the throne of Persis, 1328, 1329. Planets, seven wandering stars, 1303 a. Atlantici, what are their labors, 1442 a. Hearing, providing a narrow passage for sound, receives and discerns resonant vibrations, 1489 b. Gold more gives, but praise adorns the recipient more, 1714 b. Autumn and its various effects, 1459 b. Avarice, which is idolatry, the root of all evils, is never sated, 1494 b. Birds, their singing and modulations, 1505 b. The kinds of birds that conceive when the wind blows, what they denote for us, 1522 b.
B Barbarian, bold with fear, and swift in flight, 1237 b. How barbarians used to go to battle, 1226, 1227. Barbarians, timid and sluggish, showed themselves as manly only in feigned fighting, 1238 c. It is the law for barbarians to adore created things, and it is natural to adhere to falsehoods, 1199 c. Wealth is the sinew of war, 1312 a. Blennus heals the ailments of the bladder, 1557 b. Bolus of blood checks spitting, 1531 b. Silkworm, the works of, and the stages of its amazing metamorphosis, what they teach us, 1532, 1533. Goodness of God in creation, incarnation, and redemption, 1569, 1570 et seqq.
C Warmth seeks the conjunction of what is moist, 1453 b. Heat turns food into blood, 1488 c. Various effects of heat, 1458, 1459. Camel, the chaste, reproves the incontinence of the Persians, 1505, 1506. It purges itself with moist oak leaves, and thence vomits up dry humors, 1507 b. Crabs prevent consumption, chilblains, and the stings of scorpions; they liberate from pain those bitten by a mad dog; their wondrous skill in plundering oysters, 1554, 1555. Dog, if it eats green grass, dispels the affection of black bile, 1507 b. Cantharis, and what is the mode of procreation for it, 1513, 1516. Doe, wounded, eating dittany, spits out the arrow's poison, 1506 b. Carbuncles, whence their fiery color, 1562 b. Catoblepas twists its fiery effluvia, and like lightning emits fiery vapors, 1507, 1508. Puppies, beaten with lashes, crush the boldness of lions, 1466 a. Cedar drop removes itching, 1552 a. Neck is ruled by flexible vertebrae, lest it fall when it turns itself, 1458 b. Monstrous whales, the portents of the sea, dwell in the deserts of the abyss, and why, 1511 b. Cherubim, the host of Principalities and Thrones, ceaselessly sing hymns to God as to a victor, 1446 a. The nature of the Cherubim, gifted with eyes, approaches more to God, 1549 b. Chosroes, tyrant of the Persians, 1299 a. He makes fire his god, and pretends he is a god himself, 1300 a. He represents Belshazzar, 1301 a, b. Compared to Cerberus and the Lernaean hydra, 1303 a, b. The cultivator and sower of corruption, 1685 c. Most bitter enemy of the Romans, he stirs up the storms of war against them, 1623 b. He attacks the Christian religion, 1626 a. He takes Jerusalem and carries off the cross of Christ into Persis, 1683, 1686. Conquered by the Emperor Heraclius, he dies, 1305, 1332, 1626. Christ, by nature at once God and man, 1418 b. Christ, since He is God, never has a defect; He did not lay aside the nature which is man's, just as He did not lay aside the substance of the Father.
ANALYTICAL INDEX
Eclipse of the sun and moon, what it signifies, 1461, 1462. Alms, their power and effect, 1467 et seqq. Elements, their diversity and concord, 1444 b. c. Ephrem (S.) asserted a two-fold and perfect nature in Christ, 1666 b. God’s essence is not investigable; no one can search it out, 1481 a. Moved by a good example, a man becomes more fervent toward the good, 1679 a.
F Fable, if it is not explained, excites laughter, but when explained, it converts us to a pious meaning, 1586 b. Famine does not weigh down the mind with dreams, 1596 b. Pride never stands firm, 1583; and the more it boasts, the more it is brought low, 1584 b. The tumor of pride, like a dream in which there is no strength, passes away and vanishes, 1589 b. The character of pride is such that it does not wish to be finished or die, even in old age itself, 1599 b. The proud, like rope-dancers, are not raised up except to great fear and danger, 1592 b. Things raised to the height of happiness are not undeservedly said to be lost, 1201 b. The blossom of hay soothes violent fits of pain, 1551 b. Faith adorns hope, 1206 c. All created things have a useful end, 1530, 1559, 1560. Flame tends by nature on high, 1299 b. Flux and reflux of the sea, whence they come, 1464 b. Usefulness of leaves and bark, 1560, 1561. The industry, diligence, and ingenuity of the ant, 1527; what they should teach us, 1528. Fortitude and prudence may share a common home, 1203 b. Fortune stands upon a globe as a base, prone to slipping, 1582 b. Fortune is nothing, 1592 b. It deceives its own friends through the allurements of the flesh which entice and ruin the soul, 1590 b. Fortune, the image of an indecent dancing girl, 1594, 1595. Force and effect of cold, 1457 b. Grain, rising from the bosom of the earth as from a sepulcher—what should this teach us? 1536, 1537.
G The rooster with a sharp voice indicates the hours of the night, and looking out for the sun not yet apparent, awakens the sleeping workmen, 1519 b, 1590 b. The garrulous, from whom the tongue slips outside the fence of the teeth, and who clamor while speaking falsely, 1325 c. Joy quite often nourishes joy, and if anyone weeps, it excites tears, 1213 b. A small sweat extinguishes Gehenna, 1695 c. What is the symbolic significance of the fable of Geryon, 1586, 1587. The lightness and inconstancy of human glory, 1597 b. A potion made from the juice of the goby opens a blocked stomach, 1551 a. The Greeks, worshipping false gods, reverently kept silent about their orgies, 1622 a. Nature and form of hail, what they are, 1477, 1478 et seqq. Hailstorms and storms of heaven prove God’s omnipotence, 1463 b. Encomium of Gregory of Nyssa, 1650 a. b. He teaches two natures in Christ, 1651 b, 1670, 1671. The Griffin: it flies as a bird, walks as a quadruped; its strength, 1505 b.
H Periods of weeks, whence they come, 1460 b. The Hebrews, taught by the Egyptians, deified created things—not even a fly excepted, 1510, 1511. Heraclius, a true estimator of truth, 1200 c. Heraclius’s kindness and clemency, 1204 b. The multitude of his cares kept sleep from him, 1203 c. Heraclius, a second Moses, fights against a second Pharaoh, 1207 d, 1256 c. Trusting in what sign, he made the first fruits of his battles, 1207, 1208. He happily cuts through the appetite for storms and the madness of the sea, 1211 et seqq. He arrives at the Gates, 1213 c. By common consent he is chosen leader of the army, 1217 b. He addresses the soldiers, 1218, 1219. He restores liberty to the captive Prefect of the Saracens, 1225, 1226. He draws the Persians—doubtful and uncertain—after him, 1233, 1234. He was always the first to advance manfully into battle before everyone else, to provide an example for the soldiers, 1240 c. He considered labors to be delights, 1242 b. He receives a Persian defector and infidel for pardon, 1244, 1245. He joins battle with the Persians, and by deceiving their guile with vigilance and shrewdness, he overcomes them, 1246 et seqq. He returns to his own city, 1251, 1252. Heraclius, waging war in Persia, sends troops to Constantinople which was besieged by the Barbarians, and aids it with councils and providence, 1281, 1282. In the expedition against Chosroes
he is compared to Hercules, 1304, 1305, et seqq. He felt his heart was a new Ark for a new Noah of the earth, 1305, 1306. He represses the riots that arose in the city of Constantinople, 1319, 1320. He attacks Chosroes in his own city and defeats him, 1331, 1332. Heræum promontory, 1309 b. Winter storm and its effects, 1157 a. b. Hillus, how he kills a crocodile by cutting out its entrails, 1508, 1509. Hippocampus soot tightens hair that is firmly attached, 1335 b. He-goat's blood frees one from a bad affection, 1556 b. Swallow, deprived of the light of its eyes, appears with sight three days later, and how this happens, 1534. It teaches us the resurrection of bodies, 1534, 1358. Homer, fount of eloquence, did not have a perfect knowledge of virtue, 1202, 1205. Man is nothing but humus, clay, and dust about to return to dust, 1584, 1585. Man's nature and formation, 1484 et seqq. Man's greatness, power, and infirmity, 1567, 1568 et seqq. Men are more difficult to tame than to calm wild beasts, 1271 b. Men, whence they are black in some places, and indeed white in others, 1158 a. b. Humility is commended; its benefits, 1592, 1593. Hymn in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 1336 et seqq. Ibis, wiser than Galen himself, heals itself, and in what ways, 1520, 1521. Fire and water, the common treasures of the poor, 1448 b. The Persians worshiped fire and water, contrary natures, revering the dissolution of opposite things, 1200 c. The fire which was worshiped by the Persians as God, Heraclius extinguished, 1332 b. c. An image not made by painting, fashioned by the Word himself, which Heraclius carried against the Persians, 1207 b. The habit of infants knows how to prefer that which is worse to better things, 1683 a. Even vile insects show the dignity and power of Providence, 1531, 1532. An excellent training, which begins only from the first elements, 1691 a. The envious are not envious of cares, 1325 c. The envious, just like serpents, inject the poison of malicious fiction into the soul, 1463 b. Envy, since it contributes nothing to essence, wants to disturb the essence of all things, 1258 b. Envy, a most foul plague of minds, 1593, 1596. The Ister, or Danube, bound by cold, provides a crossing, 1266 b. Judgment will be manifest to all in the end, 1516, 1547. Justinus (St.) not only devoted to human philosophy but also to celestial, and a faithful martyr of dogmas, asserted two natures in Christ, 1662, 1663. Youth and old age, what they are, and in what they differ, 1487 b. c. Lampyrus (the firefly), shining, puts on a kind of spark, 1514 b. Nature and properties of stones, among which one repels diseases, another attracts iron, and others, when struck inside, kindle fire placed outside, 1550, 1551. Lion's fat relaxes nerves that are violently convulsed, 1556 a. The tongue is loose and spongy, so that it may be apt for twisting words, and it is the plectrum of the organ we use for speaking, 1485 b. Whatever the mouth swallows, the tongue tests and discerns, 1489 c. Nature and form of locusts; how they wage war; they are troublesome to crops and herbs, 1529, 1530. Lucifer fell to earth because of an immoderate desire for seeing, 1549 b. Circus games, amusements to be condemned and avoided, 1379 b. c. The moon borrows its splendor from the sun, 1482 b. What kind of mixing occurs between the moon and the sun, 1453, 1454. Moon, goddess of Persia, 1233, 1236. Wolf's tongue, when applied to infants, loosens speech impediments, 1557, 1558. Clay by which dysentery patients are healed, 1551 b. Magi, their lying delusions, 1303 b. The memory of past evils is also troublesome, 1373 b. Manes’ insanity regarding the resurrection of bodies; he is refuted, 1340 et seqq. Where pearls are nourished, 1561, 1562. The instability and rages of the sea prove God and his providence, 1463, 1464. Martyrdoms and tribulations, gems and riches, 1472, 1473. Various kinds of tortures of the martyrs, 1501, 1502. God knows how to make matter free of matter, 1198 a. Physicians, who take care of this clay-like flesh, are to be trusted, how much more so God, 1539, 1540. What the continuity and tension of the limbs are, 1487 c. The receptacle of memory, where the received ideas of things are kept, what it is like, 1488 b. How the mind adheres to the clay-like body, and how the spirit remains joined to the flesh, 1491 b. The mind, by its nature the swiftest of all, hastens toward knowledge of the cause, 1561 b. The devil, a hidden prowler of human minds, 1192 b. A harlot loves no one, and pretends to be dying with supreme affection, 1593 b. A merganser, bending its shading wings, foretells winds, 1520 b. What the fable of the Minotaur teaches us, 1586, 1587. Moderation, the origin of virtues; its necessity, 1591 b. A monarchy ruling with God fosters and directs all things by the Word, and removes disordered confusions, 1215 b. Mountains, walls against enemies, 1326 c. Various diseases which are excited in man and against man, from the flesh and from the spirit, 1493 et seqq. Moses’ various miracles, 1499, 1500. The whole universe, like a great house, stands unmoved, 1454 b; and it captures its firmness from the very contention of things, 1455 b. The cunning of a mouse living within the labyrinths of caverns, 1522 b. Sudden changes of any things are harmful, 1456 b. God's mysteries are to be venerated by silence, 1623 a. Nature knows how to return to its own proper channel, even if one compels it to flow against itself by force, 1270 b. Nature is to be investigated by no one, 1435 a. God wraps it in darkness and gloom, 1436 a. Human nature is a little world, 1594 a. Nature rejoices in the resurrection of Christ, 1374 a. God has bound opposite natures, like sisters, with the bond of peace, and by their concord the world stands unmoved, 1454, 1455. Clouds, arisen from perturbation of the mind, bring the night of ignorance to the mind, and disturb the star of reason, 1427 b. Urgent necessity usually begets great counsels amidst fear, 1245 c. Nestor's mellifluous tongue, 1203 b. How much faculty the eye of the mind possesses for investigating all hidden things, 1491, 1492. Two eyes placed in the forehead responding to one another, two like lamps, by which we can attract light, 1490 b. c. Through the eyes the heart contracts filth, but through them also it sends out tears, washing what enters and what exits, 1491 b. Sense of smell, the vehicle by which the spirit that sustains life is brought in, 1489 c. We can recognize the operations of God, 1502 b; and through his operations, God, 1517 a. The source of prayer is one, but there are many veins, 1430 b. Defect of order, a creeping disease that snatches away better opportunities, 1215 c. Eggs represent the world, and express the images of the elements, 1528 b. How various parts of them are embodied, and diverse substances are converted into flesh, bones, and wings, 1529 a. A leopard, when it is sick, drinks the blood of a wild goat, and is healed, 1506 b. How the form and likeness of parents are expressed in us, 1186 b. The poor are God's ministers and domestics, 1467 a. The emeralds and pearls of the rich, 1472, 1473. Splendor of the peacock, 1529 b, 1532 b. Original sin, a plague, 1466 a. The conformation of the pelican, and the way in which it feeds itself, 1518, 1519. How perceptions through the senses are obtained, 1488, 1489. The Persians worshiped the sun, moon, and fire as divinities, 1298, 1299. Between the army of the Persians and that of Heraclius
A there is a conflict/distinction, 1226, 1227. The Persians, defeated by Heraclius, turn their backs and flee to the mountains and crags, seeking an exit, 1247 et seqq. The deceit of Persian cunning, 1213 c. God is no respecter of persons, but in what way, 1466, 1467 et seqq. Phocas the emperor, a corrupter of life, more grievous than a dragon and a hydra, 1268 a, b. Tumult, drunkenness, the architect of all calamities, the face of a Gorgon, 1317 b. The fable of the Phoenix teaches the resurrection of the dead, 1520 b. Piety is the mother of freedom of speech, 1697 a. Fish fat extinguishes inflammation of tumors, 1553 a. The variety of plants and fruits, their color and sap, demonstrate the providence of God, 1503, 1504. Plutarch, the writer of the *Parallel Lives*, 1308 a. What repentance avails before God, 1470, 1471. Porphyry, modest, shuns second marriages, 1512 b. Porphyry, a sophist and fabricator, whose tongue is sharp but whose character is, by habit, always fickle, 1516 b. The power of God pervades all things and is not constrained by the narrowness of places, 1502, 1503. Authority ought to shine not so much in fear as in love, 1218 b. Authority, when scorned, is wont to call upon force for aid, 1702 d. Storms and hail prove that the creature is a servant of God, 1463 b. B Proclus the sophist, proud and puffed up, is attacked, 1432 et seqq. He was a most crafty writer, 1434 a. Divine providence is clearly evident from the order of created things, 1460 et seqq., 1479, 1480. Ptolemy, the investigator of the stars, 1251 b. The sea lung, whose form is shapeless, calms and dispels chilblains, 1555 b. The Pyrigonus knows what is useful to itself; and fire, the voracious consumer of all things, becomes food for its own life, 1314, 1415.
**R** The juice of the root has the power of purging, 1551, 1552. The remora, a very small fish, how it obstructs ships, 1511, 1512. Dried with salt, it serves those suffering from uterine complaints, ibid. The universe, though not always the same, remains invariable and has the limits of necessary change, 1461 b. The resurrection of the dead is asserted by various arguments, 1535 et seqq. How it will come to pass, 1546 a, b. The miraculous effects of Christ’s resurrection, 1375 a, b. Unfruitful brambles provide simple remedies, 1552 b.
**S** The salamander resolves burning furnaces into soot, 1514 b. Saints and martyrs, fighting against the devil, have carried off the victory, 1497, 1498. For the wise, prayers are the thrones, and sacred discourses the pulpit, 1595 c. Satiety, the vehicle of diseases, 1596 b. The horns of beetles heal diseased eyes, 1556 b. Eating the entrails of the parrot-wrasse checks the flux of our own entrails, 1553, 1554. The Slavs, like wolves, simultaneously mixed earth and sea with slaughter, 1322 b. Scorpion venom is most useful against pestilence, 1558, 1559. Scoundrels are like dogs, who while appearing to want to fawn with their tails, inflict bites, 1493 b. The Seraphim, in their immobile speed, stand, fly, and run firmly, 1446 a. They declare the Son to be the incarnate Word, 1417 b; and they proclaim Him to be both man and God by nature, 1418 a. Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, warring with armed tears, breaks the barbarian audacity, 1273 c. With the Blessed Virgin Mary protecting, he turns the barbarians to flight and frees the city, 1279 et seqq., 1285 et seqq. He is compared to a physician and a husbandman, 1428, 1429. The power of words is such that they easily traverse, skillfully depicting, the natures of any things whatever, 1202 b. Severus of Antioch, the impious, is refuted, and his errors regarding the incarnation and person of Christ are keenly attacked and refuted, 1622 et seqq. Like an unstable wave flowing away, he has no stable foundation, 1627 c. Severus, a collator of sophistries, twists the words of Scripture to his own meaning, 1635 a. Like an asp, he is killed by his own offspring, 1638 a. He changes his mind and acts as the tutor of an unchaste dancer, 1639 a. He speaks things C contradictory to one another, and contradicts himself, 1644, 1646. His first teachers and patrons, 1654 a, b. How dry and wet concur in the germination of plants, 1459 b. The green nature of emeralds, 1562 a. The sun and moon are the ornaments of heaven, 1443 b. The sun, the common eye of all, the pupil looking upon all things; it provides night under the earth and day above the earth, 1450 b; it pervades all things, 1451; it keeps the same order always, and if it were to turn aside even a little, the world would be consumed by fire, 1452. The sun produces various effects by its heat, and how, 1458, 1459. The sun, by its double course, becomes the messenger of night and the prophet of day, 1462 b. It is granted to no one to look upon the sun with intent and steady eyes, 1501 b. The Persians worship the sun as God, 1230 b. A multitude of cares turns sleep away from the eyes, 1205 c. Even thorns contribute to man’s salvation, 1552 b. The divine Spirit, as a physician, heals our mind of various infirmities, 1428, 1429. The Holy Spirit and His gifts; graces imparted to men through Him, 1570 et seqq. Pride adheres, fixed to the human heart. The mind knows not how to bridle it, 1600 b.
**T** Touch, by the judgment of the fingers, discerns the soft from its opposite, 1489 b. The bull, so that it might endure labors and cleave the earth with a plow, received strength of vigor, 1503 a, b. The storm by which Heraclius is attacked while setting out against the Persians, 1210, 1211. The sea storm is described, 1463, 1464. The four storms [seasons] of the year, like girls who entwine their fingers while dancing, are tempered in an alternating course, each preserving its own order, 1436 b. The division of time, 1460 b. The signs of the times and the year, and the positions of the moon, 1482 b. The various temptations by which the devil allures the minds of men and drives them into every kind of wickedness, 1593, 1596. An end without an end cannot be ended, 1233 c. The earth is like a point in the middle of heaven, 1413 c. The earth provides a well-adorned dwelling, and daily prepares banquets for all of us, 1435 b, c. The earth, although heavy, is founded upon an unstable base, 1474 b. The earth, a ship swimming on the waters, carries the whole world on its back, 1473 b. Any earth is a first seat for the wise; for the earth is equally open to thrones as it is to tombs, 1596 c. The tortoise carries its wretched body enclosed within its own house, 1511 b. God gives laws to thunders and lightnings, 1473 b. There is inherent in the torpedo fish a power and grace, 1553 a. The trochilus bird feeds in the teeth of the crocodile and becomes for it a salutary herald of impending danger, 1309 b. The sea turtle soothes toothaches, 1553 b.
**V** The vanity of this life is to be fled, 1382 et seqq. Cold poison quenches warm affections, 1538 b. God gathers the essences of the winds into one treasury, and afterwards pours them out, 1475 b. The effects of spring, 1457 b. How the worm is a witness and example of our resurrection, 1533, 1534. Viper flesh is a prepared remedy against poisons, 1558 b. The Virgin, Mother of Christ, alone knows how always to conquer nature, first in birth, then in war, 1263 a. Daily she brings forth sons to God, and while remaining a virgin, she becomes more fruitful, 1273 c. The wonders and faculties of sight, 1490 b, c. The fleeting flux of life always brings changes, 1201 c. The axis of human life, with the same measure always preserved, is turned and driven, 1460 b. The penalty of life is an occasion for common salvation, 1474 b. The theater of life is full of infamy, 1588 b. The splendor of the present life passes most swiftly, 1597 b. The swelling of earthly pleasures, like a bubble leaping and inflated with wind, is quickly broken and scattered, 1597 c. The healing of the body’s wounds asserts the resurrection of the flesh, 1338 et seqq. The vulture, begotten without seed, and refreshing its young with the bloody outflow of milk—what it teaches us, 1517, 1518. A symbol of the Virgin Mary, 1521, 1522. D
**X** Xerxes’ foolishness in the war against the Lacedaemonians, 1230 et seqq., 1300 b.
GREEK INDEX to the Historical Works of George Pisida
The letter A denotes the Avar War, H the Heracliad, P the Persian expedition. The first number indicates the canto, the second the verse.
[index: entries preserved]
ORDER OF SUBJECTS CONTAINED IN THIS VOLUME
CHRONICON PASCHALE.
Car. Du Fresne Du Cange's Dedicatory Epistle. 9 His Preface, concerning the author of the Paschal Chronicle. 14 Chronological Analysis of the Paschal Chronicle. 59 Dindorf's Preface. 67 CHRONICON PASCHALE. 70 CERTAIN SELECTIONS for the illustration of the Paschal Chronicle. I. Calculation and summary of times. From Scaliger, book VII of *De emendatione temporum*, and Petavius' *Uranologion*. 1050 II. Explanation of the subjects of the chapters, when and under whom each occurred. From Petavius' *Uranologion*. 1053 III. Catalogue of Roman Emperors from Augustus to Constantine Monomachus. 1057 IV. Book of generations from Adam down to the order contained in this book. A work which we have deemed could be ascribed to Hippolytus of Portus in the Preface: from the edition of Henry Canisius and Philip Labbe, collated with a manuscript of the Paris College of the Society of Jesus. 1041 V. Fragment from the Chronicles of Eusebius. From Royal mss. 2431, fol. 17, and Colbert 1350. 1055 VI. From Hesychius, on the Nativity of Christ. From the same mss. 1057 VII. From an Anonymous writer, on the years of the Nativity and Passion of Christ. From Royal codex 2131, fol. 172, v. 1057 VIII. Dorotheus on the LXX disciples of the Lord, etc. From Royal mss. 2760 and 2819. 1059 IX. Homelands of the twelve apostles, and their names, and from which they are. From Royal codex. 1075 X. Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, on the baptism of the apostles and the Mother of God. From the manuscript Chronicle of Symeon Logothete. 1075 XI. Fragment from the Cuspinian Fasti, as a specimen of matters omitted. 1077 XII. Description of consuls from the time they were first ordained, hitherto published with the lemma of the Idacian Fasti, collated with the manuscript exemplar of the Paris College of the Society of Jesus, and compared with the edition of Arnaldus Pontacus, bishop of Bazas. 1077 XIII. Greek Fasti from the year of Christ 137 to the year 361. From the Savilian codex and the edition of the distinguished Henry Dodwell in the appendix to his *Dissertationes Cyprianicae*. 1097 XIV. Other Greek Fasti, from the Vossian transcript, from the year 222 to the year 630. From the edition of the same Dodwell. 1103 XV. Fragment of the Fasti from the year of Christ 205 to the year 354. From Bucherius. 1111 XVI. From the times of Gallienus, who and how much time one administered the prefecture of the City, from the year of Christ 254 to the year 354. From Bucherius. 1113 XVII. Catalogue of Roman pontiffs in which some consular Fasti are enumerated. From Bucherius. 1115 XVIII. Paschal [cycle] of one hundred years, from the year of Christ 313 to the year 411. From Bucherius, where it is given corrected. 1119 XIX. List of consular Fasti, from the consulship of Ausonius and Olybrius to the 17th year after the consulship of Basilius. From Colbert codex 240, and from the edition of Arnaldus Pontacus after the Notes on Eusebius' Chronicle. 1121 XX. Another list of consuls, after the Chronicle of Senator. From the same Colbert codex. 1125 XXI. Method by which is found the [day of the] month for each one, and into which day of the week it falls, and into which year it falls...
[the leap year]. From the Commentary of the Emperor Heraclius on the *Handy Tables* of Ptolemy, from the edition of the most learned Dodwell. 1123
XXII. Various readings to the two epistles of Dionysius Exiguus on the method of the Pasch. From various manuscript codices, Royal, Colbertine, and Petavian. 1131
XXIII. Concerning the Pasch of the Jews. From a Colbertine codex. 1133
XXIV. Arguments of the Egyptians, which I mention. Dionysius Exiguus in his Epistle to Petronius, and Victorius in his Paschal Canon. From the Colbertine codex 240, after the epistle of Bishop Paschasinus to Pope Leo. 1133
XXV. Concerning the triple era of the Greeks, and that which the author of the Paschal Chronicle uses. From Petavius, book IX *De Doctrina Temporum*, chapter 3. 1135
XXVI. Concerning the two epochs of Christ, etc. From the same Petavius, book VIII of the *Auctarium*, chapter 1. 1137
XXVII. Method of epacts, and the ratio of investigating the new moon, which the author of the Paschal Chronicle uses. From the same, book IX *De Doctrina Temporum*, chapter 5. 1137
XXVIII. Method for knowing the Paschal terms or Jewish Paschs, which the author of the Paschal Chronicle uses. From the same, book VIII of the *Auctarium*, chapter 11. 1137
XXIX. List of Macedonian months. IV-IX. 1139
XXX. Concerning the consular fasti of the Chronicle up to the 16th year of Tiberius. In English in Clinton’s *Fasti Hellenici* II, 1139
Syllabus of authors who are cited in the Paschal Chronicle. 1143
Observations of Matthaeus Rader on the Alexandrian Chronicle. 1146
ORDER OF SUBJECTS
GEORGIUS PISIDA, DEACON OF CONSTANTINOPLE
Preface of Maria Quercu. 1162 Preface of Bekker. 1193 Note of Quercu on the Persian Expedition. 1196 ON THE PERSIAN EXPEDITION. 1198 Note of Quercu on the Avar War. 1359 AVAR WAR. 1363 Note of Quercu on the Heracliad. 1364 HERACLIAD, OR ON THE FINAL DESTRUCTION OF CHOSROES KING OF THE PERSIANS. 1398 Note of Quercu on the Akathist Hymn. 1354 AKATHIST HYMN. 1355 Annotations of Quercu on the Akathist Hymn. 1347 Note on the following work. 1573 ON THE HOLY RESURRECTION. 1574 Note on the Hexaemeron. 1385 HEXAEMERON OR COSMOPOEIA. 1426 Note on the work *On the Vanity of Life*. 1582 ON THE VANITY OF LIFE. 1582 Note on the work against Severus. 1602 AGAINST SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH. 1622 Note on the life of St. Anastasius. 1678 LIFE OF ST. ANASTASIUS THE MARTYR. 1679 FRAGMENTS OF SENARII. 1731 Index to Ducange's preface to the Paschal Chronicle. 1736 Index to the Paschal Chronicle. 1756 Index of mixobarbarous words in the Paschal Chronicle. 1775 Analytical index to the works of Georgius Pisida. 1781 Greek index to the Avar War, the Heracliad, and the Persian Expedition of Georgius Pisida. 1781
THE END OF THE NINETY-SECOND VOLUME. Paris. — From the press of L. MIGNE.